1951-12-12

Mr. Roland Beaudry (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, just before entering the chamber someone brought to my attention a news item in the Toronto Telegram, of yesterday's date I believe, in which it is stated that I am a rebel in the Liberal party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Roland Beaudry: -and that I intend to move non-confidence in the government.
I am not and I don't.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on industrial relations.-Mr. Macdonald (Edmonton East).


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Was the undertaking given by Mr. W. C. Clark, deputy minister of finance, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, to the Ming Sung Industrial Company of Canada Limited (as set out in the letter which appeared in sessional paper 167, November 16, 1951), carried out?
2,	Did the Ming Sung Industrial Company of Canada Limited make payment of income tax in excess of the sum of $100 annually, in each or either of the years 1949-50 and 1950-51?


Mr. Sinclair:: 1 and 2. The undertaking given by the deputy minister on behalf of the Minister of Finance has not been carried out. The question of tax liability of the company under the Income Tax Act has not been finally determined.



NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: 1.	Has any assistance been given by way of loans through Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to persons or communities in the province of Newfoundland, outside of the city of St. John's?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the loan or loans which have been made in each case?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	Yes. Of a total of 49 loans to home owners or builders, 46 were made jointly with lending institutions and 3 were made directly by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation pursuant to section 31A of the National Housing Act, 1944.
2.	From June 1, 1949, to November 30, 1951, in the amounts as follows:
1949:	$8,400;	$6,000;	$8,600;	$7,500;	$5,000;$6,100;	$5,700;	$6,440;	$5,900;	$5,700;	$8,300;$6,500;	$6,700;	$6,100.	1950:	$5,400;	$6,500;	$6,040;	$6,000;	$5,500;$7,920;	$5,500;	$7,920;	$8,680;	$7,040;	$6,440;$6,600;	$6,000;	$7,400;	$7,660;	$8,000;	$8,500;$7,980;	*$8,000:	; *$4,000.	1951:	$8,500;	$5,740;	$6,560;	$7,500;	$7,360;$7,000;	*$8,000;	$6,760:	; $5,800;	$7,000;	$6,000;$7,500;	$6,700;	$5,600;	8,500.	
* Direct loans.



NICOLET, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. Couriemanche:: 1.	Was a postmaster at Nicolet, Quebec, appointed during the years 1949 or 1950?
2.	If so, upon whose recommendation?
3.	Has such appointee been suspended or discharged?
4.	If so, for what reasons?


Mr. Rinfret:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As a result of a competition held by the civil service commission.
3 and 4. Because a shortage in post office funds at this office has been discovered, for which the postmaster is being held generally accountable, he has been relieved of duty until investigation has been completed.



NAVAL STORES AND SUPPLY


Mr. Balcom:: 1.	How many naval officers and naval personnel are presently employed in the operation of naval stores or naval supply at Halifax?
2.	Is the department to have the administrative positions in naval stores or naval supply filled by naval personnel rather than by civil servants?
3.	Has consideration been given to ensure continuity in these important administrative positions?


Mr. Campney:: 1.	Three officers and twenty-one other ranks.
2.	The senior civil administrative officer of supply is the superintendent of stores, and comes under the naval officer-in-charge.

Questions
Under the superintendent are civilians heading the various supply subsections. No change in this set-up is contemplated.
3.	Yes.


NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Brooks:: 1.	What is the location of each of the industries recently established in the province of Newfoundland by foreign countries?
2.	What is the amount of capital invested in each case?


Mr. Mcllrailh:: No official information on file.


COMBINES LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	Have counsel been engaged by the government in connection with the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on combines legislation?
2.	If so. what are the names of counsel so engaged and what are they to be paid by way of (a) fees; (b) expenses?
3.	How much have they received to date?
He said: I have received the information so this question can be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



NAVAL STORES AND SUPPLY-CIVIL SERVICE PERSONNEL

['(a) 71; (b) 406; (c) 820.']
Mr. Balcom:: In view of the administrative changes in naval stores or naval supply at the Halifax dockyard, what is now the highest position a civil servant may expect to attain in these departments?


Mr. Campney:: Administrative officer,
grade 3.



Mr. Lafonlaine:: How many officers are there now in the Royal Canadian Navy, the Canadian Army, and the Royal Canadian Air Force, active forces, who were in the services in 1939, who are (a) of French origin; (b) of other origin?


Ralph Osborne Campney: (a) 24; (b) 366.


ARMED FORCES-OFFICERS OF FRENCH ORIGIN IN VARIOUS YEARS
Joseph Lafontaine: How many officers of French origin were in the active forces of the three services (a) in 1939; (b) in 1947; (c) in October, 1951?


Ralph Osborne Campney: (a) 71; (b) 406; (c) 820.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


INDIAN SCHOOLS


Mr. Lennard:: 1.	How many tenders have been accepted for the installation of sanitary equipment in Indian schools during the past three years?
2.	What was the amount of each tender, and by whom was it filled?


Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce):: Return tabled.



TRANSLATORS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES

Mr. Pouliol:: What are the names of the translators, male or female, who made the translation of each of the pages 859 to 861, 994 to 998, 1080 to 1085, 1302 and 1303 of the English text of the unrevised edition of the official report of the House of Commons debates for the present session?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Hodgson:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Mr. R. G. Peers and the government of Canada or any department or agency thereof since January 1, 1946.



NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can he give the house any information regarding reports in the newspapers this morning that Canada, among other nations, is to be asked to increase her rearmament program by 5 to 10 per cent? If so, what has become of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty?


Hon. Brooke Claxlon (Minister of National Defence):: The representative of Canada on the temporary council committee which has been meeting in Paris is the Minister of Finance. I would be glad if he would answer the question.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I saw the press reference. In reply to the question may I say that the committee is meeting on Friday to consider its draft report. I have no reason to believe that it will recommend an increase in Canada's military efforts.



CIGARETTES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. E. Anderson (Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct to the Minister of National Revenue two questions of which I

have given notice. What is being done with the large quantities of United States cigarettes that are being seized by customs officials and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police? Are they being allowed to displace Canadian cigarettes for sale in Canada?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I thank the hon. gentleman for having given me notice of his questions. Cigarettes that are seized are first put in what is known as the king's warehouse. They are afterward distributed to veteran hospitals throughout the country. The practice formerly followed was to destroy such cigarettes. This distribution is made by officials of the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise branch, who in practically all instances are veterans. They visit the hospitals and make a personal distribution.
The hon. member asked also whether the cigarettes are allowed to displace Canadian-made cigarettes for sale in Canada. The broad answer to that would be "no". They do not enter into competition except in so far as the recipients in veterans hospitals would probably buy Canadian made cigarettes if they did not get the ones which have been seized. They are not in competition with them on the open market.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: Is the
Minister of Fisheries in a position to give the house any information on the recent hearings before the United States tariff commission, Washington, D.C., concerning an application by certain New England groups to increase the tariff on fish entering the United States from Canada?


Hon. R. W. Mayhew (Minister of Fisheries):: The United States tariff commission has completed its hearings on this subject. Our own industry presented a brief through Mr. Clarence Morrow of Lunenburg. While the hearings have been completed investigations will be continued for some time by the tariff officials and they will consider any submissions made by United States and Canadian officials.



AGREEMENT WITH NORWAY ON SEAL FISHING SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):: Have any steps been taken to reach an agreement
The Address-Mr. W. J. Browne with Norway as to the date when the killing of seals will commence so that both countries may derive the most benefit from the seal fishing?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: On several occasions Canada has discussed with Norway the matter of killing seals and has also conducted an inquiry with sealing companies in Newfoundland and along the maritime coast. Agreement has been reached and Canada is now prepared to enter into direct negotiations with Norway. We expect that will be done within the next two or three weeks.



RADIOTELEPHONES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Joseph Browne: should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of question No. 8 standing on the order paper in my name. It has been reported over the radio in St. John's that radiotelephones will be installed in the spring and I should like to ask if that is official.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am not aware of that and I did not hear the radio broadcast the hon. member has referred to. Since the question is on the order paper I shall try to see that it is answered as quickly as possible.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment, as amended, of Mr. Argue, and the amendment to the amendment, as amended, of Mr. Diefenbaker.
William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, on the last evening of this debate when I was speaking I was about to read from United States fishery products report No. 224, to be found in the bulletin of the fisheries council of Canada of November 30 1951. This reads:
The outlook for increased fish production appears to be promising, for the FAO study reports that many countries are adding, or planning to add. mechanized craft to the fishing fleets to fish in areas farther from port and save on travel time. Moreover, the report adds, improvements in fishing gear and equipment are being made in many underdeveloped as well as developed countries.
I am aware that at the present time a joint committee is sitting in Newfoundland under the chairmanship of Chief Justice Sir Albert Walsh, a man who knows the customs of the

The Address-Mr. Adamson country and who for several years was a member of the commission of government. The fishermen of Newfoundland will be looking forward to the contents of this report when it appears, but I do want to point out to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew) that if our interest in the fisheries is allowed to lag, and if we allow our fisheries to decline, as appears to be the policy of the provincial government, other nations more vigorous than ours will step in and take our rightful place as the greatest fishing country in the world.
Today is the fiftieth anniversary of the reception by Marconi, the inventor of wireless telegraphy, of the first transatlantic message. Fifty years ago in Cabot tower on Signal hill, above the narrows of St. John's harbour, a copper wire suspended from a kite picked up a signal transmitted from Cornwall, thus justifying the confidence of Marconi in his discovery and inventions. The untold benefits mankind has derived as other scientists have improved upon Marconi's invention justify our grateful commemoration of the astonishing event that occurred just half a century ago.
I have only one other thing to say and that is to compliment the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) upon the solicitude that he showed the other day when he referred to the Canadian sisters who have been victims of the Chinese communists. 1 should like to draw to the attention of the house an article that appeared in La Presse yesterday, which reads:
(Translation):
Persecutions have cut down by two-thirds the number of missionaries in China.
As a result of the efforts of Chinese communists to drive the Catholic church out of China, the number of missionaries has fallen from 5,000 to 1,879. Every day, other missionaries are being expelled, or jailed prior to deportation. Most Protestant missionaries, never as numerous as Catholic missionaries, have left China. It is not known how many have remained.
According to the last survey, there were 142 foreign Catholic missionaries in the prisons of China and there are probably twice that number being kept under close watch in their homes.
Among Catholic missionaries jailed by the communists, are the following Canadians:
Mgr. Cuthbert O'Gara, of Ottawa: Rev. Arsine Mullin, O.F.M., of Montreal; Rev. Didace Arcand, O.F.M., of Three Rivers . . .
... and many other priests and nuns from Canada.
(Text):
I should like also to refer to an article which appeared in The Sign of November, 1951, which reads:
Countless martyrs have shed their blood. Today it is "dry martyrdom." A long slow process calculated to reach into a man's inmost being and dry up all spirit of resistance or desire to acknowledge

anything but what is forced upon him. A slow but definitely effective process the horrors of which are beyond the imagination of those who have not fallen victims, a deadly inhuman diabolic process that reached its almost perfect form in the Mindszenty case.
Hunan-
A province in China.
-is now the training ground for this modern Soviet type of oppression and destruction. Bishop O'Gara-
Who is well known in Ottawa.
-is in prison, his priests under constant threat, his diocese in the hands of renegades, his faithful dreading each moment of the day and night. God be with them.
How can we feel happy when these people are facing martyrdom? All Canadians have a right to expect that their government will do everything possible to protect their lives and bring about the release of these heroic men and women.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I do
not wish to prolong this debate an instant longer than is absolutely necessary, but I wish to refer once again to the remarks the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made in this house concerning cases of dismissal for security reasons. I still believe, Mr. Speaker, that some machinery must be set up whereby a man who is considered a poor security risk has the opportunity of hearing the case against him. I do not believe that this requires any breach of security, and I am convinced that it can be done without in any way disclosing the necessarily secret methods employed by the security forces of the country. Notwithstanding the genuine feelings of the Prime Minister concerning these cases, and the fears of allowing security material to be compromised, I feel that we in this house, as the custodians of the freedom of the individual, cannot permit these dismissals to continue without recourse to any appeal.
I thank the Prime Minister for the objective way in which he dealt with my submissions in this case. I feel that the present system is unsatisfactory, and I do suggest that it is dangerous to the genuine security and freedom of this peace-loving country.


Mr. Robert Fair (Battle River):: I shall not take more than about two minutes of the time of the house, and then we shall be ready for the vote. One week ago I found it necessary to bring to the attention of the house certain complaints coming from the residents of Ottawa in connection with the practice of using tea bags in certain restaurants on more than one occasion. On Thursday I received a telegram from the president of the tea bureau in Toronto advising me of his displeasure over the complaint and stating a representative would come to Ottawa to make an investigation. I believe that the representa-

The Address-Mr. Fair
tive visited Ottawa on Friday and made an investigation. The result of the investigation, which appeared in the press yesterday and this morning, is to the effect that no tea bag tricks are being practised in Ottawa.
I believe that the officials of the tea bureau are not fooling the citizens of Ottawa in sending out a report of that kind. First of all, it must be realized that anyone practising these tea bag tricks would not admit to anyone that such was the case. They are not pulling the wool over the eyes of these victims of the tea bag tricks. I am not retracting one word of the complaint I made a week ago. In fact my position has been strengthened by the fact that since that time people have voluntarily told me that they have also had that trick pulled on them. The practice is injurious to the health of the people in this and other cities, and I feel that the publicity that has been given to it will prevent offenders from continuing the practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Does the amendment carry?


Mr. Knowles:: The question is on the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion before the house is on the amendment to the amendment as amended. Is it the pleasure of the house to carry it?


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some confusion as to what we are asked to vote upon at this stage.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall attempt to make it clear. There was an amendment moved by Mr. Argue to the main motion, to which Mr. Bater moved a subamendment which was carried. Then the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved an amendment to the amendment as amended. The question now is on' the motion of the hon. member for Lake Centre.
The house divided on the amendment to the amendment as amended (Mr. Diefenbaker) which was negatived on the following divi-
Maclnnis
MacLean (Queens)
McGregor
McLure
Meeker
Nose worthy
Nowlan
Poulin Quelch Ross (Souris) Tustin Wright Wylie-45.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Abbott Anderson Applewhaite Ashbourne Balcom Bater Beaudry Benidickson Black (Chateauguay-Huntingdon-Laprairie) Boisvert Boivin Bonnier Boucher Bradette Breithaupt Breton
Brown (Essex West)
Bruneau
Cameron
Campney
Cannon
Carroll
Carter
Cavers
Chevrier
Claxton
Cloutier
Conacher
Corry
Cote (Matapedia-Matane)
Cote (Verdun-La Salle)
Cournoyer
Crestohl
Croll
Darroch
Dechene
Deeore
Dickey
Dion
Dumas
Eudes
Eyre
Ferrie
Follwell
Fournier (Hull)
Fournier (Maisonneuve-Rosemont)
Fulford
Henry
Hetland
Hosking
Howe
Hunter
James
Jeffery
Jutras
Kickham
Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough)
Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Lafontaine
Laing
Leduc
Lefrancois
Lesage
Little
Macdonald (Edmonton East)
MacLean (Cape Breton North and Victoria) MacNaught Macnaughton McCann McCulloch McCusker McHraith Mclvor
McLean (Huron-Perth)
McMillan
McWilliam
Major
Maltais
Martin
Masse
Mayhew
Murray (Oxford)
Picard
Power
Prudham
Ratelle
Richard (Ottawa East)
Riley
Rinfret
Roberge
Robertson
Rooney
Rousseau
sion:
Gardiner
St. Laurent
YEAS Messrs:
Adamson
Argue
Black (Cumberland)
Blackmore
Blair
Brooks
Bryce
Cardiff
Casselman
Churchill
Coldwell
Coyle
Dinsdale
Drew
Fair
Fairclough, Mrs.
Ferguson
Fleming
Fraser
Gillis
Green
Hansell
Harkness
Hees
Herridge
Hodgson
Jones
Knight
Knowles
Lennard
Low
Macdonnell (Greenwood)
Garland	Sinclair
Garson	Sinnott
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Smith (Queens-
Gauthier (Portneuf)
Gauthier (Sudbury)
George
Gingras
Gingues
Goode
Gourd (Chapleau) Gregg
Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Harrison
Healy
Hellyer
Helme
Henderson
Shelburne)
Stick
Stuart (Charlotte)
Studer
Tremblay
Viau
Ward
Warren
Weaver
Welbourn
Whiteside
Winkler
Winters
Wood-129.

The Address-Division


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). Had I voted, I would have voted against the subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Cleaver:: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted-, I would have voted' against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. McCubbin:: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Fulton:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted, I would have voted in favour of the amendment to the amendment, as amended.


Mr. Graydon:: I was paired with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion of the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) as put by Mr. Speaker, but on the order paper it is described as "the amendment to the amendment, as amended, of Mr. Diefenbaker".


Mr. Huffman:: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on
Mr. Argue's amendment as amended by Mr. Bater. Those in favour of the motion will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Probably the house would
not wish me to call in the members.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Speaker:: Does Mr. Bater's motion carry?


Mr. Ross (Souris):: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall put the yeas and the nays.


Major James William Coldwell: That is better.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of Mr. Bater's motion will say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish me to
call in the members?
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:


Mr. Cauchon moved: , seconded by Mr. Simmons:
That the following address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada:
To His Excellency Field Marshal The Right Honourable the Viscount Alexander of Tunis, Knight of the Most Noble Order of the Garter, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Companion of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Companion of the Distinguished Service Order, upon whom has been conferred the Decoration of the Military Cross, Governor General and Commander in Chief of Canada.
May it Please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
Mr. Argue, seconded by Mr. Wright, moved an amendment to that motion; and subsequently Mr. Bater moved an amendment to Mr. Argue's amendment, which was carried.
Mr. Bater's amendment is that the following words be added :
This house regrets the serious difficulties encountered by the western farmers in harvesting their crops, and commends Your Excellency's advisers for the continuing attention they have given to the problems caused thereby, and is confident that effective measures will continue to be taken to help the farmers in meeting these problems.
The question is now on Mr. Argue's amendment as amended by Mr. Bater.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment as amended carried.
not been paired I am not quite sure how I would have voted, because I rather fancy that the motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -was out of order.


Hughes Cleaver: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment as amended.


Robert McCubbin: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted for Mr. Bater's amendment.


Gordon Graydon: I was paired with the
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment as amended.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted I would have voted against the government.


Edward Blake Huffman: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment as amended.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is now on the main motion.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to delay the final disposition of this subject but I have one observation to make about the rather anomalous action that the house has just taken. If the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was right when he spoke in the house on October 15, what the house has just done is to express its lack of confidence in the government because when the Prime Minister spoke in this debate on October 15, as found at page page 33 of Hansard, in speaking of the observations of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) with reference to the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition he pointed out that if the amendment was not a motion of non-confidence it probably was not in order at that time.
Having regard to constitutional practice in these matters, which was so effectively reviewed by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he spoke on December 10, it is quite apparent that since 1899 no government member has ever moved an amendment on a resolution proposing that an address be presented to His Excellency.


An hon. Member:: We are progressive.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was paired with the hon. Mr. Fleming:	That practice has been
member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Had I followed in the United Kingdom certainly

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy since 1894. Therefore in the light of constitutional practice what the majority of the house has just done in supporting this amendment is to express want of confidence in the government. I presume therefore the government has no alternative but to resign.


Mr. J. W. Noseworthy (York South):: Mr. Speaker, while the government is trying to make up its mind whether it should carry out the suggestion and accept the vote as one of want of confidence, there is another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the house. I am quite sure that members on the opposition side of the house will appreciate the fact that during the present session, with no budget and no estimates, the throne speech is the one opportunity when members may deal with subjects of general interest to the country. I am confident that members on the Liberal side of the house, since they were quite ready to spend almost an entire day debating a meaningless amendment to the amendment so that Liberals would not find it inconvenient to vote against the amendment, will bear with me for a few moments on this question. I want to discuss a statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) when speaking to the house on October 25. At that time he was introducing the resolution preceding the old age security bill, and at page 381 of Hansard he said:
As my colleagues and I have so frequently emphasized in the years since 1945, the broad social objectives then outlined by the federal government have constantly remained in the forefront of its thinking and planning.
I want to bring to the attention of the house what some of these broad social objectives were which were proposed, by the government in 1945. One of great interest to the country was a nationally based and nation-wide social security program which included among other things social and health insurance together with hospitalization. I want to quote-and I shall not be long-from the proposals made in 1945. At page 28 there is the following:
Although great progress has been made in Canada during the first half of this century, there still remains a tremendous job to be done in improving the national health and in extending the benefits of modern science and medical care to all parts of the nation and all sections of the population.
Then I want to read another quotation from page 28. This is the Liberal government speaking in 1945. It reads:
Under our present system, for the man who can afford to pay, the cost of ill health falls at the very moment when his earning capacity is cut off. The cost of treatment and cure for the individual who cannot afford to pay is borne to a considerable degree through the benefactions of well to do members of the community and the generosity of doctors who give so freely of their time and skill, and more and more by the provincial governments and municipalities. In spite of these efforts desirable treatment is still not obtained in many cases. While

much of the cost of illness is thus hidden^ it can only come out of the total productive capacity of the country. The advantages of a broader provision of health services on a more equitable basis are obvious.	.
That was in the year 1945. Then there is another choice statement, and I quote it because the spokesmen for the government who prepared these proposals put the sentiments I want to express today in words that are as good as any that I could use. They said:
To remove disparities in standards of health services in different parts of Canada, to avoid the risks of sudden heavy expenditures, and distribute health costs more widely and equitably, and above all to obtain the benefits of better health for the great majority of our people, these are the objects of the proposals which the federal government is now making with respect to health insurance for all, and increased public health services assisted by federal grants.
The government, or at least the Liberal party, has apparently been interested in health insurance for a long time. We find that health insurance first found itself in the election manifesto of the Liberal party back in 1919, only thirty-two years ago. I suppose thirty-two years is not much in the lifetime of a political party and possibly the Liberals consider that thirty-two years is really not sufficient time for them to begin to implement their election manifesto promises.
We are now in 1951, thirty-two years since the Liberals first adopted the principle of health insurance as an election program, as an election promise. We are back now, probably not to where we were thirty-two years ago but certainly to where we were in 1941 or 1942. The government went much further than to just offer these pious proposals for health insurance; in 1945 the government actually spelled out these proposals and gave them to us in considerable detail. On page 29 of their proposals they stated:
Health insurance has been widely adopted because it is regarded as the best means of meeting and of distributing fairly the costs of illness and, in conjunction with preventive services, of improving the general health of the nation. Specifically:
(1)	Health insurance enables the cost of illness to be prepaid, so that by paying regular sums when they are well people are able to meet the costs of illness when they are ill without being financially crippled.
(2)	Health insurance not only enables individuals to prepay their medical costs, but does this in such a way as to secure a wide pooling of risks and distribution of costs in much the same manner as any other form of insurance.
(3)	The provision of funds by all persons within a large area makes it possible for hospital and medical services to people in that area to be planned and administered more efficiently and economically than could be done by any other method.

(4)	The provision of better facilities for treatment and advice also operates to reduce the total incidence of disease and preventable death. Health insurance must be accompanied by adequate public health measures of a preventive character, but health insurance itself also provides important preventive benefits.
(5)	Health insurance permits the steady extension of health services into areas not previously covered, and the rapid application everywhere of new methods and services as they are discovered and developed.
In that language the government set forth back in 1945 most definitely its proposal of a health insurance program. Prior to 1945 th^y had done some spade work. In 1941 the then minister of pensions and national health had called a meeting of health authorities and persons interested in public welfare. It will be noted that that meeting was called only twenty-two years after the Liberals first adopted health insurance into the election manifesto. In twenty-two years' time they managed to get around to the point where the minister was calling a meeting.
In 1942 the government appointed an advisory committee on this matter. In 1943 a House of Commons committee was set up, and in that year the advisory committee reported to the House of Commons committee and presented a draft bill in which all the details were worked out. I recall the election which followed the presentation of that draft bill. It was pretty generally understood throughout the country that all that was needed to have that bill become legislation was to elect the Liberal party. That was the general appeal made by the Liberal party in that year. In 1944 a conference was called at Ottawa of representatives of all the provinces. Various views were put forth, and in that connection the proposals were as follows:
In May, 1944, a conference was held at Ottawa which was attended by representatives of all the provinces. The discussion principally turned on the estimated cost of the services contemplated under the draft health insurance bill and on the manner of meeting this cost. Views were put forward by several provinces which appeared to have the support of most if not all of the provinces. These indicated their strong desire that health insurance should be proceeded with by stages and that any scheme adopted should be flexible enough to permit the provinces to build on the varying services in each province.
In the throne speeches of 1944 and 1945 health insurance was included as part of the Liberal policy. That was one of the objectives that the Liberal party held out to the Canadian public just on the eve of the 1945 elections. Four definite proposals on the subject of health insurance were set out by the government in 1945. The scheme was to include a grant for planning and organization; it was to include health insurance; it
The Address^Mr. Noseivorthy was to include health grants; and it was to include federal assistance in the construction of hospitals. The proposed federal contribution was as follows:
(i)	a basic grant of one-fifth of the estimated cost of each service as shown on the table which follows as from time to time revised by agreement, and
(ii)	one-half the additional actual cost incurred by each provincial government of providing each benefit, provided that the total federal contribution does not exceed the amount stated in the table for each service, or maximum of $12.96 per person, when the complete program is in operation.
That was the financial basis upon which the program was to progress. Among other help that was to be granted, I am particularly interested in the reference to financial assistance in the construction of hospitals. The proposal stated:
To make a hospital extension program less burdensome to the provincial governments and to local communities, it is proposed that the federal government should provide loans to the provincial governments entering health insurance agreements, and through provincial governments to municipalities and other organizations, for necessary expansion of hospital facilities, at a rate of interest equal to or only slightly above the cost of such loans to the dominion. . .
That was to be one of the ways in which the government was to make its contribution towards the building of hospitals. There were to be loans from the government, and there were to be the basic amounts for health insurance grants for various types of assistance. We are now in 1951, and where are we with health insurance? We are back in 1942 or a little farther back than 1942. In 1942 we did have a committee, but in 1951 we have only the promise of a committee which is to be set up at the next session. Apparently the government's policy concerning this matter underwent a change in 1948, and Mr. King's announcement of the new policy on May 14 included no provision whatever for health insurance. Since then there has been no indication that the government is seriously considering the implementation of that 32-year-old promise to the Canadian people.
There can be no reasonable argument for delaying the implementation of that program. The government cannot say that these proposals were made, and were subject to agreement with the provinces. It was clearly set out that these proposals were flexible, and that any province could enter into an agreement to put into effect any part of this program that it was felt it could do at that time. The proposals were flexible enough to permit any province that wanted to institute health insurance to enter into an agreement with the federal government whereby it would get the federal aid set out

The Address-Mr. Noseworthy in these proposals for the implementation of health insurance. Other countries, probably less fortunate than Canada, have instituted health insurance since 1945.
I should like to read briefly from an editorial which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star under date of December 8, 1951. I am quite sure that Liberals will listen to any editorial appearing in a paper which is so devoted to the Liberal party and the Liberal cause.


Mr. Martin:: It shows good judgment.


Joseph William Noseworthy: The Star mentions an address made by Dr. Fraser Brockington of Manchester university on the subject of health insurance and social medicine. In summarizing that address the Star has this to say:
The British national health scheme is In the third year of its operation.
In other words, Great Britain, with all her handicaps, with the aftermath of war and all her financial problems since 1945, has been able to institute an over-all health insurance program similar to that which this government proposed in 1945, but which we in Canada have not been able to implement. The editorial continues:
It has already reduced the backlog of neglected health among a large portion of the population, and improved the efficiency of hospitals and other facilities. It has made possible for people in outlying areas to obtain the services of specialists where they were not easily available before. The nursing supply has been increased, as well as hospital beds. Maternity and child welfare services, home nursing and domestic aid have been extended. A national deafness service is a new addition through which hearing aids are being provided at the rate of 6,000 a month, most of them to elderly people who could not afford them in the past.
Perhaps the most important benefit of the national health service is psychological. It has removed from the entire population the fear of sickness. It has eliminated the financial barrier to medical care. The service is especially appreciated by the middle classes, individuals and families whose income ranges between $2,000 and $5,000 a year. To these groups, sickness often brings calamitous burdens of debt. The health service guarantees protection to them and many others. No one in Britain now becomes shackled by debts for surgical operation, childbirth or hospitalization for a long, chronic ailment.
Then-, this is interesting:
The British national health service is mostly financed by general taxation. About a ninth of the cost is covered by contributions from employees and employers. An employed man (single or married) pays about 10 cents a week; a woman pays 7i cents and an employer 1-8 cents. They contribute also as direct or indirect taxpayers. And everyone, without distinction on any ground, is entitled to whatever medical or hospital services are required for cure and prevention of sickness.
There is one other point brought out in this editorial that is interesting to Canadians

in general. Dr. Brockington refers to the British national health service as social medicine. He says:
-it is "social medicine," in that all essential health facilities are being extended to everyone on a cooperative basis, with due respect to the rights of those who give and those who receive the service. Doctors, dentists, pharmacists, etc., are not salaried employees of the state . . .
I wanted to point out that Great Britain, with all the difficulties, turmoil and aftermath of the war, was able to embark upon a social and health insurance program such as outlined there. We in this country are under a Liberal government that professes to believe in such a program, that has been promising such a program to the Canadian people for over thirty years, and that at one time reached the point of having a draft bill ready, which bill was held out to the Canadian public at election time when the appeal was made that all that was necessary to have the bill placed on the statute books was the election of the Liberal party. I might add that in recent months the Liberals in Ontario particularly have appeared to be quite interested in health insurance and hospitalization. Some cabinet ministers from this government went into Ontario in support of that program during the campaign. Did the minister say no?


Mr. Marlin:: I was looking to the right.


Joseph William Noseworthy: As I recall the matter, if my memory serves me correctly, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) was reported in the press as having spoken, probably by coincidence at that time.


Murdo William Martin: Just so that the record will be clear, but not that this is important, may I say that the Minister of National Health and Welfare made no speech whatsoever in the provincial election campaign.


Joseph William Noseworthy: No speech in Ontario during the provincial election?


Murdo William Martin: I said that I made no speech whatsoever during the provincial election and in connection with the provincial election. I made a statement which was referred to in this house, in which I pointed out that it was this parliament that was responsible for the Old Age Security Act and not any provincial government. This was the only comment I made publicly during the election. I thank my hon. friend for giving me the opportunity to correct his statement and to make the record clear.


Major James William Coldwell: But the hon. gentleman was supporting the Liberal leader and the Liberal party.


Murdo William Martin: The hon. gentleman always supports the Liberal leader and the Liberal party.


Major James William Coldwell: We have that clear now.
Mr. Nose worthy: That clears the matter up now. My point is that Liberals of the federal house participated in the campaign and seemed to be genuinely interested in this subject. I think it would be unfair to the Liberals who have shown such great interest in this subject throughout the years, and particularly in the last few weeks in Ontario, to close this debate on the address in reply without giving them an opportunity of expressing in some concrete way just what their attitude is. In order to do that I move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the following words be added to the address, as amended:
"This house further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for a national health plan, including hospitalization, medical care and health insurance."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated a moment lest the Minister of National Health and Welfare wished to comment on this further amendment. I hope he will do so even yet. A few words from him would be quite sufficient, if they are the right words. I can assure you, sir, and the house that what I have to say at this point will be brief.
I want to indicate that, in my view, the subject matter of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) is one of the most important questions facing this country at the present time. It is a matter of extreme concern to all our people. We are slowly but surely making some headway in the field of social legislation, particularly in that we are getting rid of the means test with respect to the old age pension for those 70 and over and in that we are getting a pension started at age 65.
There are other improvements necessary in that legislation, principally an increase in the amount. But, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, it is becoming extremely important that we bring in along with our old age legislation some forward steps in the field of health. I need not rehearse the story that has been given by my colleague with respect to the promises that have been made by this government across the years but which are not measured up to by actual performance. It certainly is a fact that our people across this country are interested in this whole problem of health and need some attention to be given to it. The wording of the amendment proposed by my colleague
The Address-Mr. Knowles pin-points what is really needed, namely a national health plan, including hospitalization, medical care and health insurance.
There are various appropriate announcements that the Minister of National Health and Welfare could make at this time. I hope that the least he will do is to confirm the promise he made last June to the effect that at the 1952 session of parliament there will be a special parliamentary committee to go into this question. As he knows, ever since the work of the special parliamentary committee on old age security some of us have been urging that a further committee be set up; and during debates on this matter last June the minister indicated that we would have such a committee at the next session of parliament. I hope that the minister today will confirm that promise. I urge further that that committee be set up just as early as possible in the session that will start some time in the first part of 1952.
There is just one other comment that I want to make while I am on my feet, and it relates to a copy of a sessional paper which was tabled yesterday but which reached me just this morning. It is sessional paper No. 86-B which was tabled by the minister's parliamentary assistant, giving the answers to questions of mine having to do with requests from the provinces for grants for research purposes under the federal health grants program. This sessional paper sets out requests for grants for research purposes which have been turned down by the Department of National Health and Welfare. I want to register my protest against the action of the department or of the minister, or whoever is responsible, for turning down some of these requests. I think that action shows an indefensible lack of interest in some extremely important matters. For example, according to this sessional paper, the Newfoundland provincial government asked for assistance for:
A complete survey of the provincial hospitals which would improve their management and business procedures, under the terms of the general public health grant.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I know of a lot of things on which money is being spent which are a lot less important than a survey of the provincial hospitals of any province-in this case it was Newfoundland-with the hope of improving their management and procedures.
Then there was a request from Quebec for research into a certain aspect of arteriosclerosis, to be carried out at the pathological institute, McGill university, and at the Royal Victoria hospital in Montreal. We know how excellent is the work done at these institutions. I suggest that the failure to grant the money for that research project is something that we

The Address

Mr. Knowles should protest. Similarly, there was a request for money for research into the effects of electrical and chemical stimuli at the neuromuscular junction, to be carried out by the department of physiology, McGill university. There are a number of other requests such as that from outstanding centres of medicine across the country.
Then here is one that came from Ontario, and frankly, when I look at it, I am amazed that the government turned this down, unless they were afraid of the results. Just listen to this. It is a request from the Ontario provincial government for assistance for a research project on:
A housing and health survey in St. Thomas and district to discover the relationship, if any, between substandard housing and adult and child health.
I think that is definitely something that we should have research on, Mr. Speaker, namely the relationship between substandard housing and the health of our people. I think the government of Ontario is to be commended for proposing such a research project. I think that this government is to be condemned for turning down a project of that kind. There are others-I am not going to read them all-but there is one more I want to draw special attention to, and I am particularly disturbed that this request was refused. It was from the government of Saskatchewan. I am reading from the sessional paper that was tabled here yesterday. The request was for money for research on this subject:
An administrative analysis of health insurance plans operating in Canada with emphasis on the patterns of administration emerging in this new field of health service.
I do not know all the details, but I believe that Saskatchewan indicated it was possible to get financial assistance from other sources as well, if they could get some assistance from the federal government for this, and it does seem to me that it would have been a very valuable piece of research.
The federal government wants us to believe that it has some interest in the question of health insurance. We vote money every year in the estimates for health insurance studies. It took considerable effort on our part for quite a while to get the government to spend that money for that purpose, but they are spending money on health insurance studies. They have a director of health insurance studies, although he does have other work as well. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) has given further evidence of at least some interest in the question of health insurance by his announcement that we are to have a special parliamentary committee on this subject next year. If that is so, it seems to me it would have been an excellent

idea to have a piece of research such as this carried on and perhaps completed before that committee is set up.
I do not know how wide it was intended that this survey be made, but it sounds as though the government of Saskatchewan was interested in an objective survey of the administration of health insurance plans operating in Canada in all the various parts of this country.
If the government is sincere in its interest in health insurance, sincere to the point of being willing to establish a parliamentary committee at the next session, I certainly think it should not have turned down that request. The amounts of money involved in these various research projects that are covered in this sessional paper 86-B I am sure would be only a drop in the bucket compared with the federal government expenditures at the present time, and I hope that the minister will reconsider his decision against these research grants. I feel that all of those that I have indicated-and perhaps the rest of them in this sessional paper- should have been made. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will indicate that it is the intention to set up that special committee as early as possible at the next session of parliament.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before the question is put I should like to say just a word about the amendment, because I would not like to vote on it without making our position very clear. I must begin by saying that I am absolutely opposed to the amendment, not because I do not want to see our people throughout Canada have the advantage of any health measures which it is possible to extend to them, but I object very strongly to having these things all centralized in the federal government; I object strongly to having our people mollycoddled constantly and forced into becoming wards of a superstate.
I do not find it possible often to come to the assistance of the government, but when I do I like to make my position very clear. I think that the federal government has set about this whole business of health measures on a very wide program. I think they have done well, and I want to pay that tribute to them. They have done an outstanding job in the field of health, but they have had the good sense to work in close co-operation with the provincial governments in order to see to it that whatever assistance could be granted from the federal government to the authorities who are supposed to be looking after the health of the people-that is, the provincial and municipal governments-is

extended to them. I like a great many of the things that have been done by the department of health here. I could speak at length, but I do not intend to. I could enumerate the fine things that they have done to assist the provinces in their schemes for health insurance.
I would like to see more educational work done. There could be considerably more research, and perhaps more investigational projects. There certainly could be more education to assist our people to understand what it is that makes them sick, and to help them to follow a manner of living that will keep them well. I object to any national scheme that places a burden of taxation upon all the people to treat, we will say, a very large section of the population that will not do anything to keep themselves well. I do not think that is right. It is high time that we began to understand that until individuals in our country take advantage of the information that is available and educate themselves in nutrition and other health measures to the point where they will do their utmost to keep themselves out of hospital, until that time comes it is not wise to talk about taxing the daylight out of the rest for the sake of giving these others hospitalization and medical assistance.
When I say that, Mr. Speaker, I recognize that there are many people who could not do any more for themselves. I realize that. I realize, too, that there are many people who have no access to hospitalization or to doctors, because they cannot afford it. Certainly these are legitimate cases and there should be some way of helping them; but the best way to do it is to have the responsibilities placed upon the government nearest to them, and that is their municipal and provincial governments.
In our province of Alberta we have recognized the necessity of giving aid to our people as far as we possibly can, and that without taxing them to death. In the first place we decided years ago there were certain diseases that will strike members of families and will require long and costly treatment. Such diseases are likely to impoverish those families, and to render them homeless.
As a government we decided some years ago that it was our duty to step in and to assist in such cases. So we, as a government, took over the complete cost of poliomyelitis cases, and the after-training of individuals stricken with that disease, so that they could be fitted to earn something for themselves later on when their condition improved. We took over the full cost of the
The Address-Mr. Low treatment of cancer cases. We recognized also that, to cut down so far as possible the high rate of infant mortality, we should extend maternity hospitalization . of all expectant mothers, and do it at the expense of the government. That has been done. It has been going on very well for years. As a result, our infant mortality rate in Alberta has become very low.
Then, very early in the game we took over the full cost of the treatment of tuberculosis and, so long as necessary, the hospitalization incidental thereto. By taking these burdens off individuals the government has made it possible for families to get along, and has prevented their becoming impoverished through heavy medical costs.
We believe that in Alberta we have gone a long way in connection with hospitalization. We have now a scheme based upon careful and close co-operation between the provincial government and municipal authorities, and with the assistance of the federal government granted some years ago under a hospitalization scheme whereby individuals throughout the province can receive hospitalization for a dollar a day.
We felt it was wise to leave something to the individual. I do not believe it is good to give them everything. We felt in Alberta that a dollar a day was at least a token payment that almost any person could afford. It has had the effect that in Alberta one does not find the hospitals filled with patients complaining of bellyaches and ingrown toenails. They do not go to the hospitals unless they really need hospital treatment.
As a result we feel that our people gradually, step by step, are getting the kind of health assistance and health insurance they need. I believe it is wiser by far to work out schemes whereby the federal government will grant assistance through grants in aid so as, if possible, to equalize opportunities in respect of health facilities in all the provinces. We have felt it wise for the federal government to continue its investigational and research projects, and to make the results known to the people of Canada. This government should go as far as it can in assisting the provinces to inform the people about nutritional services and health measures of all kinds, so that people eventually will learn how to keep themselves well and out of the hospitals, as well as free from the necessity for medical care.
I wish to make it abundantly clear that we Social Crediters are favourable to every possible measure of assistance for our people in the field of health; but we strongly object to centralizing this in the federal government. Let us see to it that the fullest possible

The Address-Mr. Maclnnis measure of co-operation is built up between the federal government, the provincial governments and municipal governments. Let us see to it that we leave something to the individual. The only way in the world we can ever maintain a spirit of independence is to do something of that kind. So I say that until some such thing as we have been doing in Alberta can be conceived on a national scale, I must oppose the amendment.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words. As it is now almost one o'clock, I wonder if I might be permitted to proceed after lunch.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Certainly.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at 2.30 p.m.



ORDERS IN COUNCIL


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, by leave of the house I should like to ask to revert to motions and lay on the table a summary of the orders in council passed during the period November 1 to November 30, 1951.



SPEECH FROM THE THRONE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Robert Cauchon for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, as amended, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Noseworthy.
Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure members that I rise to speak on this question with great reluctance, not because I am not interested in the subject matter of the amendment but like many other members of the house I hope to spend Christmas at home and I do not wish to hold up the house. I would not have spoken at all if it were not for certain remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low). That is one excuse, and if another is necessary, I have spoken very little in the house during the present session. I do not suppose I should ask credit for that because I feel I should have expressed my opinions more often. In this matter I suppose I feel like most people as they approach old age, namely, that the things they regret are
[Mr. Low.)

not the things they have done but the things they have not done. The amendment before the house reads:
This house further regrets that Your Excellency's advisers have failed to make provision for a national health plan, including hospitalization, medical care and health insurance.
When the hon. member for Peace River spoke he gave the impression that the effect of the amendment would be to place all health matters under the control of the national government. Surely no member of this house believes that that is the purpose of the amendment, and least of all a member as intelligent as the hon. member for Peace River. All I want to do is to show that nothing more is included in the amendment than has been included in government statements in the house and in government documents over the last ten years. I have in my hand a book printed under the authority of the Department of Trade and Commerce, dominion bureau of statistics, health and welfare division. Its title is, "Health Reference Book, 1948." I should like to read briefly from the introduction on page 9 as follows:
Government activities directed toward improving Canadian health standards include a broad range of services carried out by dominion, provincial and municipal authorities. Within the Canadian federal system, the principal responsibility for health administration-
Note that it is not all responsibility but the principal responsibility.
-rests with provincial governments, the actual provision of service usually being shared with local authorities. Until 1948 the provinces and municipalities also paid virtually the full cost of maintaining traditional services and developing new programs in response to public demand.
Note that new programs came into being not to satisfy the social or political philosophy of any particular group or party, but in response to public demand. Then I wish hon. members to note this important paragraph in the introduction:
An important change in the basis of support for ' new services was made in May, 1948, when the government of Canada announced the introduction of a system of grants to provincial authorities for the extension and improvement of facilities and services as a preliminary step in the development-
Development of what?
-of a national health insurance plan.
Surely this amendment does not go beyond what we find in the government of Canada's health reference book of 1948. I also have before me the health reference book prepared for the dominion-provincial conference on reconstruction, August, 1945. It is a very instructive document, full of statistics and information on the health of the Canadian people and health services in Canada. The paragraph I wish to read is on page 47

and has the heading, "Summary of Opinions Regarding Health Insurance". It reads as follows:
Recommendations made to the social security committee in 1943 and 1944 are summarized in the accompanying diagram, the most striking feature of which is the almost unanimous support given to the principle of health insurance by organizations presenting briefs and evidence.
This is referring to health insurance organized by whom? A health insurance plan organized by the government of Canada. It continues:
Only one organization was quite opposed to health insurance, and another group requested exemption of its members on religious grounds.
I remember quite well the evidence given before the committee because I was a member of the committee. I wish to say again that the proposal contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy) does not go beyond what the government itself has been advocating. Whether or not they believe in it I do not know, but that is what they have been advocating, and I can only assume they do believe in it. Then I come to a perhaps more important document, the proposals of the government of Canada in August, 1945, to the dominion ^provincial conference on reconstruction. At page 28 there is a section dealing with the national health program. This is not a provincial or municipal program; this is the national health program. The subheading is, "Scope for Improvement in Health and Health Services". It reads as follows:
Although great progress has been made in Canada during the first half of this century, there still remains a tremendous job to be done in improving the national health and in extending the benefits of modern science and medical care to all parts of the nation and all sections of the population.
The tremendous job mentioned in this document has hardly been started, let alone completed. What the amendment moved this morning does is to regret that that has not been done. There is not the slightest ground for saying that this amendment proposes that all matters pertaining to health be under the authority of the national government. Let me read again from the same page as follows:
There are great inequalities in the quantity and quality of health care available to different groups of Canadians, and in the costs of such public and private health services and medical and hospital facilities as are now available. These inequalities in part reflect differences in personal incomes, and in part are due to differences between rural and urban areas. Great differences between provinces arise from these same factors.
I noticed that when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) spoke he said that the government of Alberta was providing a large range of public health services. My congratulations to the province of Alberta not only on
The Address-Mr. Maclnnis providing those services, but on being able to provide them. Then the hon. member went on to say that the government of Alberta was doing that without taxation. Even if Social Credit philosophy was being carried out by the government of Alberta, which it is not, I am firmly convinced that they could not carry out a program of health or any other service without taxation unless they had an alternative source of revenue. Fortunately for the people of Alberta they have an alternative source of revenue at the present time in the form of oil, but every province in Canada has not oil to draw on to provide funds for social services.
My own native province, the province of Prince Edward Island, has no oil wells from which it can finance social services. The province of Manitoba has no great oil wells, nor have the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. There are scarcely any of the other provinces which can finance their governmental activities through the sale of oil. I say to the hon. member for Peace River that there is a limited amount of oil under the ground in Alberta. I do not care how much oil there is, the minute the first well was tapped they began to diminish the amount of oil under the ground. Some day they will find out that they have reached the bottom and they will have to turn to some other source of revenue to finance their social and other services.
As the hon. member for Peace River has said, I believe that people should do certain things for themselves. But before people can do things for themselves they must have the ability to do them. Social services are made necessary because people have not that ability. There is perhaps only one reason why a government should engage in any of these services and that is that the people as individuals are not able to provide the services for themselves. The moment there is a large number of people who cannot provide themselves with the things that are generally available within the country, then governments will have to step in because of public need and public demands. They must do this, not necessarily because they wish, but because the needs of the people compel them to do it whether or not it is in their political and social programs.
I believe and have believed for a long time that instead of being curers of disease which they cannot cure, doctors should be teachers of health. However, as long as medical doctors, the same as any other economic group, make their living out of disease I cannot see that they are going to waste a great deal of time in promoting health.

The Address-Mr. Pouliot


Mr. McCusker:: That is a disgraceful statement the hon. member has just made to the house and I wish he would have it struck from the records.


Angus MacInnis: The statement is not disgraceful nor does it cast any reflection upon doctors. However, I am not going to place doctors upon a pedestal above plumbers and other people who have their economic livelihood to gain. I do not know of anything that would disturb doctors more than having all disease disappear tomorrow from the face of the earth because they would have to find some other way of making their livelihood.


Emmett Andrew McCusker: That could come only from a man in that party.


Angus MacInnis: If people have the necessary information there are things they can do to maintain their own health. I kept away from doctors for a period of thirty-four years, as I thought, owing to my knowledge of living, but finally I found myself in the position where I had to seek a doctor's advice. In the province from which I come we have hospital services and I had the benefit of that. People have to be taught what to do before they can know how to help themselves. I should like to read one more quotation from page 28 of this document:
It is becoming evident that the basic condition for good health in a community is the wise use of sufficient money, and that this requires a degree of organization and long-term planning in the twin fields of preventive and curative medicine greater than anything yet attempted in this country.
If that is as true today, and I am sure that it is, as it was in 1945, it is also true that it cannot be carried out by the provinces or the municipalities without assistance from the national government.
May I say again that all that this amendment does is to regret that the government has not done as much as it could have done to carry out its own proposals and recommendations made over the last six or seven years. I had one or two other points which I wished to make but in order to save time I shall conclude my remarks now.
(Translation) :


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would be fitting to mention the progress made with respect to health, in the last few years, with the present system. I have here two articles taken from a great Montreal daily, Le Canada, of August 22 last. The first is entitled: Fruitful Federal-Provincial Co-operation
The death rate resulting from tuberculosis has been reduced by half in the province of Quebec from 1941 to 1950. It is quite natural that we should rejoice at such results. Unfortunately, the

present government will immediately want to. claim all the credit. In truth, part of the credit for this improvement is undoubtedly due to the government, but such improvement would not have been possible, during that period, without the vigorous fight undertaken against tuberculosis by the Taschereau government under the leadership of Mr. Athanase David.
The establishment of sanitary units, the popularization of B.C.G. ' and other means of fighting tuberculosis in which Mr. David took the initiative, could not bring immediate results. The governments which succeeded Mr. Taschereau's, those of Messrs. Godbout and Duplessis, carried on his work in favour of health.
We disapprove of many of the actions of the Union Nationale government, of the electoral methods of that party and of the continual boasting of its leader, but we note with pleasure that, in matters of health, Ottawa and Quebec, under any government, get along beautifully for the common good.
Thus, in 1945, with the unanimous approval of the legislative assembly, the government inaugurated a five-year health program. Financial help was not lacking from the central power; on the contrary, under the heading of tuberculosis control alone, it received more than $2 million; for the construction or expansion of hospitals, and of sanatoriums for consumptives, Quebec obtained from Ottawa nearly $8 million.
Last year alone, in the province of Quebec 1,372,800 persons were X-rayed in mobile clinics, dispensaries, county health units and general hospitals. One could hardly ask for better work in tracking down the disease.
Ten years ago, in the province of Quebec, 81 persons out of every 100,000 died from tuberculosis. Last year the proportion was down to 42. That is all we wish to remember, and we rejoice over that fact.	,
I have another item from the same newspaper, Le Canada of Montreal, in which it is remembered that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is a benefactor of humanity. The item was published on August 24 and is entitled:
Benefits of Federal Health Grants
It is interesting to point out the notable development of mental health clinical services now taking place in Canada, mostly for children and adolescents. Nearly forty of these clinics have already been established throughout the country and others are being planned, thanks to the federal government's grants.
Another service which will prove to be of great importance is an instruction course in mental health for experienced teachers in primary and secondary schools. The men and women attending this course will qualify as instructors in mental health for the teaching staff. They will also act as liaison officers between the schools and the mental health clinic in their district. The federal minister of health will pay the teachers giving the special course. He will also award scholarships in order to allow teaching personnel to attend this course.
The mental health grant is but one of the ten grants provided by Ottawa to help provinces extend and improve their public health services. More than $31,000,000 is available each year for this purpose and the provinces are availing themselves more and more of those funds. Federal grants go to the following fields of activity; mental health, cancer control, tuberculosis control, general public

health, venereal diseases, crippled children, research work concerning public health and professional training.
If all the provinces continue to benefit fully from the money placed at their disposal under the national health program, the number and the quality of health services will improve greatly throughout the country. More than 20,000 hospital beds have been added to those already existing; the fight against cancer has been launched for the first time in several provinces and developed in others; medical research and training of medical personnel have been speeded up in the last three years. Public health authorities consider this federal grants program as the most memorable event of its kind on the continent.
Mr. Speaker, I have a third article I wish to read- This is taken from the leading editorial of a great Quebec city daily L'Action Catho-lique, in its November 2 issue. It is signed by the editor in chief of that paper, Dr. Louis-Philippe Roy, who pays a well deserved tribute to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This followed a conference which had taken place two days previously in Quebec. Here is the article:
To Centralize is to Weaken Confederation
"To weaken the provinces by having recourse to centralization would be to weaken confederation at the same time. As regards the administration of the federal state, or, for that matter of any other state, simplicity and success are inseparable. The duty of any government is to seek the good of the people, not its own power." Then the Hon. Mr. Martin continues immediately;
"It has always been my conviction that Canadians, taken individually, should act as much as possible on their own initiative; that the family and the local community should be free to undertake those things that come under their own jurisdiction, in their own proper sphere; and that the federal government should undertake nothing that the provinces can do better than they can. The one and only purpose of federal health grants is to strengthen and support the provincial health services. Co-operation and not centralization, such is the main idea of the national health program."
The family is the best agency . . .
. . . says Dr. Roy.
This policy implies another: We must let the family do what it can do. "No welfare agency", said the Hon. Mr. Martin, "can take the place of the parents. The family is the best agency to which the care of any child should be entrusted. However, if such care is to be satisfactory, the family must have an income commensurate with its obligations".
This does not mean the Minister of National Health and Welfare underestimates the tremendous services rendered by many welfare organizations, "but", he adds, "when the fundamental needs of children are at stake, I believe that the family is best equipped to look after them, provided it has the required economic resources."
The express purpose of family allowances is to provide parents with a part of the resources they lack. Experience shows that the government was right in entrusting the allowances directly to parents, abuses being comparatively rare.
Mr. Martin's whole conference was characterized by broad-mindedness and a Christian and social spirit. It is fitting that this be noted and that the minister be congratulated. Let us hope that the excellent principles he mentioned will be applied by all his colleagues in the federal government.
The Address-Mr. Pouliot
It is a remarkable article. It is a fine tribute, one that was well deserved by the minister.
(Text):
Now, Mr. Speaker, that I have finished reading some French quotations, I want to say a few words about this amendment.
In the first place I want to remind the house of what has been done in this country in the way of social improvements. Those who lived twenty-five years ago never thought that family allowances would be paid in respect of children up to 16 years of age. It was impossible to think of that social service; it did not exist. Then, twenty-five years ago, who thought that the old people over 70 years of age would have $40 a month and that all those in need between the age of 65 and 70 would be entitled to $40 a month?
I remember that in my early career as a practising lawyer in my district-not only in my comte but in my district-I knew of only two old people who had to prosecute their children for non-support. All the others were supported by their children in accordance with the natural law and the civil code. All the children looked after their parents when they were getting old and when they were in need. After a time pensions were awarded and now everybody wants to have one. In fact, everybody who is over 70 receives a reward for being three score and ten years of age. It is a second blessing.
That is not all. The blind receive a pension from the age of 21 on. All those pensions are paid in the domicile of those who receive them. Besides that there is the workmen's compensation act in virtue of which those who suffer accidents at their work receive compensation. Then there is unemployment insurance that gives to those who have lost their jobs some compensation until such time as they can get new ones. Not only that, but grants have been paid by the provinces and by the dominion government for the enlargement of hospitals, for clinics and for all sorts of things.
The constitution must be taken into consideration. Some people may think that it is obsolete, but so long as it is in force and is the law of the land, we must abide by it. In virtue of the constitution, all matters pertaining to public health come under the

The Address-Mr. Pouliot jurisdiction of the provinces, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) so well said a short time ago in Quebec city, and on many other occasions. I want to make myself understood. The dominion government does not make any grants to private individuals. The minister and the department respect the constitution, and they make grants to the provincial governments who, in turn, look after the private individuals.
I must congratulate two gentlemen of Quebec city who are benefactors of mankind. I know this to be so. One of them is Dr. Jean Gregoire, a famous doctor for whom my friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare has personal admiration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: He agrees with that statement. The other is Dr. J. C. Beaudet who was in charge of the health unit in my county for some years before becoming assistant to Dr. Gregoire. These gentlemen helped the people who have to go to hospital by paying part of their hospital expenses, and without any political consideration. How many times did I write to them sending the hospital bills of one of my electeurs in my comte who was unable to pay, owing to various unfortunate circumstances. Then the department came along and assumed all the hospitalization costs. It was a great help. There is in existence the public assistance act. If the case is recommended by the municipality, the department pays everything. There are in existence today a great many social services that did not exist twenty-five years ago, owing to the excellent co-operation that exists between this government and the provincial government in my province. I presume the same situation exists with respect to the province of Ontario.
As to Ontario, extravagant statements were made by Walter Thomson during the last provincial election campaign. He was going to bring in a new Beveridge plan, and he was going to look after all the sick and those who were not sick. He was like the famous Chinese doctor who was going to keep the people in good health. Where did he go with that program? He failed lamentably. It should have been food for thought for my hon. friends of the C.C.F. who moved that amendment. If they think of that episode, they must realize that following the footsteps of Walter Thomson is not the way to success.


It is a matter of opinion, of course, but when I read his speeches I thought that they were extravagant ones and that he was speaking through his hat. Apparently the majority of the people of the province of Ontario thought likewise. Just because a man calls himself a Liberal, I am not bound to support him. If I had been in the province of Ontario I would have said, as did my leader, that my domicile is in the province of Quebec; and I would not have voted. But I can express my views about what has been said on a question of public importance.
I do not intend to speak at great length about the matter but there is one case that is deserving of sympathy. It is the case of the invalids. Human miseries are always a sad thing to behold, and our sympathies are aroused when we think of those who have been afflicted by invalidity or infirmity; and sometimes they are poor and, need assistance. This motion is for hospitalization and medical care through health insurance. So long as hospitalization is offered and medical care is given there is no need for health insurance. Many invalids that I know are able to earn their own living. They do not ask for a pension. The others who are in more unfortunate circumstances and who have not sufficient means are always cared for when they are willing to go to the hospital.
The problem in my province is not that they are not looked after; it is that they want attention at home instead of going to the hospital. That is the great problem. I understand, as I have -already said, when a mother looks after her children who are disabled, who -are invalids, she gives them better care, I am sure, or kinder care, than anyone could do. She expects some compensation for the attention that she gives to her children and which is most meritorious. Health insurance will do nothing for them because they are unwilling to go to the hospital for any treatment. They want to stay home. Often I have recommended these people to Dr. Gregoire and Dr. Beaudet of the Quebec department of health for their hospitalization-, and they flatly refused such recommendations. They said: "We do not want to go to the hospital. We want to stay home."
Finally, sir, there is one reason in particular why I am strongly opposed to the health insurance scheme. I want to tell my friend, the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. McCusker), that I have respect and admiration for him, and I know that he is one of the leading members of the learned faculty; but during the' war when I looked after the cases of disabled soldiers and I saw the way they were dealt with by the army doctors it

revolted me. I do not want any army doctor to look after my family and myself; I want to choose my own doctor.


Angus MacInnis: You had better be careful.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because of the civil service preference, doctors who have been overseas on Cook's tours that lasted a few days have a preference even if they received the lowest required number of marks at the examination. That is one objection 1 have to the health insurance scheme. I have spoken long enough and I hope that the amendment will not be adopted.


George Alexander Drew: I simply rise for the purpose of explaining why I propose to vote against the amendment. I do so in the hope that, with the oversimplification that sometimes occurs, I will not see the statement made that in doing so we have voted against any national health plan. That is not before us. We have indicated our position very clearly in regard to adequate plans for maintaining and preserving the health of our people and offering to the people of Canada the very highest level of hospital and other facilities. I think that the position of our party was very clearly and very briefly stated on March 4, 1949, when, in discussing this very subject, the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) had this to say. I am quoting from page 1154 of Hansard of Friday, March 4, 1949:
This party has long realized the necessity for a plan of health in the Dominion of Canada. Let there be no doubt where this party stands on that now. We stand in favour of a plan which, in co-operation with the provinces, will give the people the maximum of services, and yet be a plan of freedom, where the doctors will not be civil servants, and which will allow free choice between doctor and patient. We have got a full realization of the deficiencies in treatment services in Canada and in our preventive services, and we stand ready to implement a plan to overcome these deficiencies, and which will raise health standards in Canada to the equal of that in any other country of the world.
Without amplifying that statement, or seeking to go into further detail, I simply wish to say that this does represent a compact statement of the position of our party in regard to measures of this nature. We want to see provisions by which the health of our people will be advanced in every way that it is within the power of the government to assist. We want to see the opportunity afforded to every Canadian to have appropriate hospital service and to have the very highest level of medical treatment, no matter what their conditions in life may be. However, I would point out the statement on that occasion contained words which should not be forgotten in a discussion of this subject, namely, "in co-operation with the provinces." We must not forget that under our federal constitution 94699-116J
The Address-Mr. Drew health and civil hospitalization are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial governments. It is not competent for the dominion government, or for the parliament of Canada, to deal with over-all plans of this kind, or to introduce measures which would put into effect even the most admirable program, unless that had been done in consultation with and in agreement with the provincial governments, and ultimately the legislatures of the provinces.
The amendment now before us amounts to a vote of want of confidence on the ground that the government has failed to make provision for a national health plan. That does not mean that it has taken the proper steps to advance a measure of this nature; it suggests that steps should have been taken in the present speech from the throne to provide a national health plan. No matter what any one of us in this house may think of the government's failure to advance further than it has in consultation with the provinces, the fact is that this subject has not reached a point where it would be possible to present a plan to this house because the provinces have not yet had an opportunity formally to approve of any plan. Nothing would be more unlikely to prevent the implementation of an effective plan than to proceed in a manner which might be regarded by the provinces as an arbitrary attempt to place on record an established plan and then simply ask for their approval or rejection.
Having said that, I wish to indicate my own belief that this is a subject which should be explored as expeditiously as possible. It is necessary to carry on extensive surveys and inquiries to find out what the best methods are that could be employed in this country of ours. One aspect of this problem alone which has not been adequately explored in relation to any plans of this kind is the disparity between the financial strength of one provincial legislature and another. As has already been pointed out, some provinces have available to them great natural resources from which they derive revenue to an extent that makes it possible for them to undertake programs which other provinces might not be able to undertake, no matter how much they might desire to follow precisely the same course. Any plan introduced which can properly be described as a national plan must be one which recognizes that difference, and which assures throughout the whole of Canada an equal measure of opportunity, or as nearly an equal measure as is practicable, so that every Canadian may have his or her health protected and preserved.

The Address-Mr. Hees
I suggest the discussion that has followed the moving of this amendment may well be borne in mind by the government; because I think it is quite apparent that throughout the house there is no substantial difference in the attitude of hon. members as to the desirability of taking measures which will improve the general health standard of our people, and equalize opportunity for all Canadians, no matter where they may live or what their financial position may be.
With that in mind I propose to terminate these remarks by repeating the statement placed upon record on behalf of our party by the hon. member for Lanark, and emphasizing our hope that in full and harmonious co-operation with the provinces we will be able to introduce in this country the very highest level of health measures existing anywhere in the world.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take not more than five minutes of the time of the house to bring to the government's attention something which I believe is a matter of very great national importance. I refer to the alarming state of unpreparedness in our civil defence program.
I feel sure all hon. members were deeply impressed when they read about the program which the city of New York has worked out, and which was put to the actual test a short time ago. The people of New York have faced a very real threat in a very practical way. And what the people of New York have done, we here in Canada can also do if we are given real leadership by the government.
While visiting the city of Edmonton this summer, I learned of the great apprehension felt by the people of that city regarding the possibility of air attack. They feel particularly vulnerable to air attacks from Russia, because during the last war on many occasions they actually saw Russian pilots walking their streets. They know how easy it is to fly from Russia to Edmonton, and back again. They are greatly worried indeed because nothing of a practical nature has been done to protect their great oil centre and air terminal from the possibility of air attack.
The people of Toronto and Montreal are similarly apprehensive. They are worried because nothing of a practical nature has been done to protect those vital centres of production. I feel sure that people in similarly vulnerable centres share the same apprehension. I feel it is essential that every effort be made to maintain our productive capacity. We are obliged to do this if we are to carry out the commitments to NATO we have

undertaken, because that whole program is so dependent upon the productive capacity of this country.
It is not enough for the federal government merely to contribute to the cost of civil defence. The federal government must give leadership in the building up of our civil defences. It is true that the co-operation of the provinces and municipalities is not only necessary but essential. However, the primary responsibility for the defence of the civilian population of this country rests squarely upon the shoulders of the federal government.
To the extent that our government assures a satisfactory civil defence program can we be assured of an uninterrupted continuation of our productive capacity, upon which our preparedness program depends. I call upon the government to give this country a civil defence program of which we can be truly proud-instead of feeling ashamed, as I for one, and many other people, feel today.
What this country wants is leadership and a practical plan. What we are getting are bland assurances that everything is all right, coupled with a shocking state of unpreparedness.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I understand we are now on the main motion as amended. I should like to protest against this method of parliamentary procedure in view of the fact that
The Address-Mr. Churchill no answer or statement has been forthcoming from the government side in reply to the able presentation made the other day by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker). It will not take me long to place my views before the house.
Unless a protest is voiced against matters such as this, in the future they may be looked back upon as being precedents and carry considerable weight. I do not wish that to happen. My confidence in the strength of our institutions leads me to believe that this parliament will be in existence for many years and some time in the future a similar incident may arise. I should like to put on the record the short form of the address to His Excellency in order that the record might be quite clear. Omitting the preamble, the short form reads as follows:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, His Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Excellency for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed to both houses of parliament.
That form of address has been in use in this country since 1903 without any change. In fact there has been no addition to the address presented to His Excellency in the 85 years of the existence of this country except in 1899, to which incident I shall refer in a minute or two. The practice in Great Britain has been to move a short address similar to the one which I have quoted, and this practice has been followed ever since 1891, except on occasions when the government of the day resigned.
To those who may say that there is no particular importance to be attached to that, I reply that this strikes at the root of our parliamentary rules and procedure. If we are to consider that this particular established custom is of no concern then we will be led to say that other established customs similarly are of no concern and the book of rules and established parliamentary procedure may be considerably disturbed. I have no objection to changes in the rules and parliamentary procedure when they are founded upon reason and are fully debated, but this procedure is being rushed through at this time without full consideration.
As I understand it, parliamentary rules and procedure exist for the protection of the rights of minorities. One can look forward to the rights of future minorities being in danger. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Lake Centre, if the practice now to be incorporated into our procedure is

The Address-Mr. Churchill adopted in future years we will have motions of non-confidence in the government being moved by the opposition and straightway being amended and altered by the government side so that they will be ineffective and no clear vote be taken on the subject at issue. Consequently I think we should use great care when deviating from established rules and procedure.
In connection with the altering of rules and procedure I would suggest that we should consider at an early time reviewing the nature of the debate on the speech from the throne as it has developed over the last ten years. My own investigation indicates that this debate has altered materially during the last ten years. We have now reached the stage where we have established a record in this session of having six amendments or subamendments to the speech from the throne. That is just another record for this rather peculiar session.
I think there should be some revision of our method of procedure with respect to the sipeech from the throne. This is necessary in view of the criticism inside and out of the house of the length of time taken in debates here. I would refer those who are interested to Beauchesne's third edition, page 96, paragraph 226, where the subject of the address in reply to the speech from the throne is considered. On that page will be found a short quotation from a speech made by the Hon. Mr. McKenzie, as follows:
It has been thought desirable in our parliamentary practice that it is better to postpone debates upon specific subjects of discussion in the house until those matters are brought forward before us by a bill or resolution.
Speaking on the address in 1879 Sir John Macdonald said:
1 am glad the opposition have adopted the English modem system-a very proper one-of passing the address without amendment, and when all the various subjects alluded to in it are dealt with, when the measures proposed are before the house, they and their details can be criticized with a full knowledge and satisfactory explanation with regard to the policy of the government.
I suggest that there is a field for investigation with regard to the procedure followed in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne.
I should like to say a word, Mr. Speaker, about the precedent of 1899 which has brought us to this impasse. Unfortunately no one in the House of Commons objected to the form of that amendment during the debate. It was a lengthy debate, covering twenty days. The subject was controversial and followed the discovery of gold in the Yukon and consequent charges of maladministration there. No one objected to the type of amendment that

was presented on that occasion, and consequently we are confronted with a situation where we feel that a somewhat similar plan could be adopted here. I point out, as was pointed out by the member from Lake Centre, that a different method of dealing with the address was followed in those days. The address in reply to the speech from the throne followed almost word for word the speech from the throne itself. It was divided into paragraphs which were numbered, and there was a debate on each paragraph.
The amendment of 1899 was attached as paragraph No. 10. There had been nine paragraphs written into the resolution, and this was attached as paragraph No. 10. To cite another example, in 1902 Mr. Bourassa moved an amendment to paragraph No. 5, but subsequently withdrew that amendment so it did not establish any precedent. However, that was the method of conducting the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the thrqne in those days, that is up until 1902. Since 1903 we have had this short form of address, and there has been no means of moving amendments to particular items in the speech from the throne. Consequently, general amendments expressing want of confidence have been moved. Those, of course, have been considerable in number.
Now, how can the house extricate itself from this position? The only example that I have been able to find or that has been drawn to my attention is a procedure that was followed in England in 1894, to which reference has been made in this house. This is what happened on that occasion. There was a Liberal government in the house with the Conservatives as the official opposition, Liberal unionists, Irish nationalists and some independents. It was a rather mixed group, and the amendment on that occasion was moved by Mr. Labouchere. I am not sure of his position in the house, but I believe he was an independent. The government supporters in the house favoured the subject matter of the amendment, so it was passed and attached to the short address. In 1894 the short address read as follows:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both houses of parliament.
To that short address was attached an amendment concerning the restriction of the power of the House of Lords. The government felt that it could not present that amendment to His Majesty, and could find no precedent for an address that had been

amended without the resignation of the government. The government was not resigning, so at the particular stage which we have now reached, the government of the day, assisted by His Majesty's loyal opposition, voted down the main motion as amended and Sir William Harcourt immediately introduced the following short form of address:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the commons of the United Kingdom and Ireland in parliament assembled, humbly assure Your Majesty that the measures recommended to our consideration shall receive our most careful attention and we beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both houses of parliament.
That short form of resolution was then passed. I suggest that on this occasion, perhaps through an error in procedure-I am not referring to the Speaker's ruling but an error in procedure in the house-we have reached the stage where the address has been amended. Surely, the only way to extricate ourselves is to do the same thing as was done in England in 1894. The house should vote down the main motion as amended, and the government should introduce a new address in short form with just a minor alteration. This could be passed, and then we would be in keeping with the established tradition of the House of Commons.
Alternatively, if that course does not meet with favour, we should have a statement recorded on Hansard that this is not to be considered as a precedent, so that future parliaments will not look to this occasion as a guide. In this way, sir, I submit that no stifling precedent will be established which will interfere with the privileges and rights of the house. We shall maintain the long-established form of presenting an address to His Excellency, and the prestige of the House of Commons, which is at stake, will be maintained in high favour. We must recognize the fact that the House of Commons comes in for criticism from people on the outside, and we may be made to look ridiculous on this occasion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


George Alexander Drew: I should like to call a vote on it, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Will five members rise?
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The Address-Division
The house divided on the main motion (Mr.	
Cauchon) as amended which was agreed to	
on the following	division:
 YEAS Messrs:
Abbott	Hunter
Anderson	Jeffery
Applewhaite	Jutras
Arsenault	Kickham
Ashbourne	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Balcom	Lafontaine
Bater	Laing
Black (Chateauguay	- Langlois (Berthier-
Huntingdon-Laprairie) Maskinonge)	
Blue	Lapointe
Boisvert	. Leduc
Bonnier	Lefrangois
Boucher	Leger
Bradette	Lesage
Breithaupt	Little
Breton	Macdonald (Edmonton
Brisson	East)
Brown (Essex West)	MacDougall
Bruneau	MacKenzie
Cameron	MacLean (Cape Breton
Campney	North and Victoria)
Cannon	MacNaught
Carroll	Macnaughton
Carter	McCann
Cauchon	McCulloch
Cavers	McCusker
Chevrier	Mcllraith
Claxton	Mclvor
Cloutier	McLean (Huron-Perth)
Conacher	McWilliam
Corry	Major
Cote (Matapedia-Matane) Maltais	
Cote (St. Jean-Iberville- Martin	
Napierville)	Masse
Cote (Verdun-La Salle) Monette	
Cournoyer	Murray (Oxford)
Croll	Nadon
Darroch	Nixon
Dechene	Parent
Decore	Pearson
Dickey	Picard
Dion	Pinard
Dumas	Pouliot
Eudes	Power
Eyre	Proudfoot
Follwell	Prudham
Fontaine	Ratelle
Fournier (Hull)	Richard (Gloucester)
Fournier (Maisonneuve- Richard (Ottawa East)	
(Rosemont)	Riley
Fulford	Rinfret
Gardiner	Roberge
Garland	Robertson
Garson	Robinson
Gauthier (Lake St. John) Rochefort	
Gauthier (Portneuf)	Rooney
George	Rousseau
Gibson	St. Laurent
Gingras	Sinclair
Gingues	Sinnott
Goode	Smith (Queens-
Gour (Russell)	Shelburne)
Gregg	Stick
Harris (Grey-Bruce)	Stuart (Charlotte)
Harrison	Studer
Healy	Tremblay
Hellyer	Valois
Helme	Viau
Henderson	Ward
Henry	Warren
Hetland	Weaver
Hosking	Welbourn
Howe	Whiteside

The Address Whitman	Winters
Winkler	Wood-143.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Adamson	Graydon
Argue	Green
Balcer	Hansell
Black (Cumberland)	Harkness
Blackmore	Hees
Blair	Herridge
Brooks	Hodgson
Bryce	Jones
Cardiff	Knight
Casselman	Knowles
Charlton	Lennard
Churchill	MacLean (Queens)
Coldwell	McGregor
Coyle	McLure
Diefenbaker	Meeker
Dinsdale	Murphy
Drew	Nose worthy
Fair	Nowlan
Fairclough, Mrs.	Quelch
Ferguson	Ross (Souris)
Fleming	Tustin
Fraser	Wright-45.
Gagnon


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He will probably send it back and ask for an explanation.


Gordon Graydon: He will regard it as a Christmas message.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to say a few words on this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would not think the motion is debatable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, yes, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is a procedural motion. It is not set forth in the standing orders as a motion that is debatable. If an hon. member can show me to the contrary I shall be glad to see it.


Gordon Graydon: This is not an ordinary message, Your Honour.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If you will give us time we shall find it.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I will indicate to the hon. member what it is. It is standing order 38.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes.


Hughes Cleaver: While the hon. member is looking up the citation may I refer to the fact that I was paired.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Green:: Order.
IMr. Speaker.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Halton merely wishes to mention the fact that he was paired with another hon. member.


Hughes Cleaver: I was paired with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Edward Blake Huffman: I was paired with the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.	.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask you to note paragraph (m) of standing order 38. When we read standing order 38 with paragraph (m) and the necessary preliminary words we get:
The following motions are debatable:
Every motion
(m) and such other motions as may be required fc- the observance of the proprieties of the house, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers, the management of its business, the arrangements of its proceedings, the correctness of its records, the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, this motion has to do with the proprieties of the house. I suggest it is unthinkable that it should not be in order to say a few words about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sure this motion does not come within paragraph (m) of standing order 38. I doubt whether it would be appropriate to debate a motion which reads as follows:
That the address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this house as are of the honourable the privy council.
The address has been passed, and this is a procedural motion which has always been made. I cannot allow debate on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling, but may I point out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I point out that if Your Honour based it on section (2) of standing order 38 it could be decided by this house on a vote. I propose to ask that the house vote upon this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I have not ruled on that question. The ruling I am making is that the motion which has been made by the Prime Minister is not now debatable. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those against will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And some members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was paired with the hon.
member for Yorkton (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion to send this improper address to His Excellency.


Hughes Cleaver: I was paired with the hon.
member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Robert McCubbin: I was paired with the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the motion.


Edward Blake Huffman: I was paired with the hon.
member for Haldimand (Mr. Catherwood). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


William Joseph Browne: I was paired with the hon. member for Yukon-Mackenzie River (Mr. Simmons). Had I voted I would have voted against .the motion.
1828	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Committees of Supply and Ways and Means SUPPLY AND WAYS AND MEANS



APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEES

Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I beg to submit the motions
required by standing order 57 for the setting up of the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means. I move:
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
I also move:
That this house will at its next sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.


George Alexander Drew: May we have some explanation as to why these motions are necessary?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Because standing order
57 requires them.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the rules require a number of procedures in an orderly and sensibly conducted session, but in. this particular session, where there has been no budget and nothing calling for these motions, I think members should be told why they are necessary, no matter what may be contemplated in the case of a regular session.


Mr. Speaker:: I might remind the house
that these motions are not debatable. There are two motions. One is to set up the committee to consider the supply to be granted to His Majesty and the other is respecting ways and means. Will the house receive both motions at the same time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: I am not debating these
motions, but I should like to have some indication as to what supply is being called for.


An hon. Member:: Read the rules.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Standing order 57 reads:
The house shall appoint the committees of supply and ways and means, at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in- answer to His Excellency's speech.
"At the commencement of every session" means just as soon as the various motions, amendments, subamendments and votes can be disposed of, and this time there have been a great many. Under the standing order these motions could not be moved until the address had been adopted, and the rule requires that it be done as soon, as the address is adopted. I am submitting them at the time required by the standing order. The house knows that it is not the intention of the government to submit a budget at this session, and there may be no occasion for anything to be dealt with by the committees; nevertheless they are required to be set up by the rule.	.


George Alexander Drew: I simply repeat that I am not
debating the question-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: -but while the rules may call for a certain procedure, that procedure must have some relation to reality. The rule that has been read relates to the procedure having to do with the introduction of a budget. I submit if there is to be no budget these motions have no meaning.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motions?


George Alexander Drew: On division.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Does the hon. member
want a recorded division again?
Motions agreed to on division.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate have passed the following bills to which concurrence of this house is desired: Bill No. 37, letter C of the Senate, intituled an act respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada; Bill No. 38, letter D of the Senate, intituled an act respecting the general synod of the Church of England in Canada and the missionary society of the Church of England in Canada; Bill No. 39, letter E of the Senate, intituled an act to incorporate the Evangelical Mennonite Brethren of Canada; Bill No. 40, letter F of the Senate, intituled an act to incorporate the Sisters of Charity of the House of Providence.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this may be a less controversial subject. It has to do with a matter that was dealt with by unanimous consent the other day. If I have the unanimous consent of the house now to revert to motions I would move:
That the private bills received from the Senate this day be now read a first and second time and be referred forthwith to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills; that standing order 105 respecting the posting of private bills be suspended in relation thereto; and that the said committee be empowered to sit while the house is sitting.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the first and second times and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 11, consideration in committee of Bill

No. 33, to establish the St. Lawrence seaway authority-Mr. Chevrier-Mr. Dion in the chair.
On section 15-Tariffs of tolls.
Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us whether the board of transport commissioners has jurisdiction over any other tolls on canals, or tolls of a similar nature?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. I speak of course from memory, but I believe that some time ago the Transport Act was amended in order to give the board of transport commissioners jurisdiction over tolls on the Mackenzie river.


Howard Charles Green: Then the only ship tolls over which it has any jurisdiction at the present time are the tolls on the Mackenzie river?


Lionel Chevrier: They also have certain jurisdiction under part II of the Transport Act.


Howard Charles Green: I ask that because this would seem to be breaking new ground for the board. They will have to consider a new type of rate in connection, with these tolls. I wonder whether this is the beginning of a policy of turning the control of shipping over to the board of transport commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not think this is breaking new ground in so far as the board of transport commissioners is concerned. My colleague draws my attention to the fact that the board does not fix these tolls. The authority will fix them and file them, but they are subject to the jurisdiction of the board under section 52.


Howard Charles Green: These tolls are to be adjudicated upon in much the same way as freight rates, are they not?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: If anyone complains that the tolls are unfair, that complaint is presented to the board of transport commissioners which could rule against the tolls, in which event the St. Lawrence authority would have to change them. Will that be the position?


Lionel Chevrier: Not quite. After deciding whether or not rates as fixed by the authority are unjustly discriminatory, the board of transport commissioners would then report to the authority.


Howard Charles Green: If the finding of the board is to be merely a recommendation and not an order, are we not putting the board of transport commissioners in a position which is not very sound?


Lionel Chevrier: I think not. The tolls have to be fixed with reference to the capitalization of this scheme. If the board of transport commissioners perchance were to recommend 94699-1171
St. Lawrence Waterway that tolls be lowered to an extent that would make it impossible to amortize the scheme, pay the interest and operating charges, then the authority might well not accept that recommendation. There is still the provision of section 52 for appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Mr. Brooks:: I want to ask a question with reference to what was said the other day in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra about cabotage. I understood the minister to say that United States ships would not be allowed to pick up trade in a Canadian port for delivery to another Canadian port. My attention has been drawn to the fact that ships operated by the Chicago Tribune, which is owned by Colonel McCormick, are carrying pulpwood or pulp products from the lower St. Lawrence port of Baie Comeau to Thorold in Ontario.


Lionel Chevrier: My information is that those ships are under Canadian registry.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My informant told me these ships carry the United States flag.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to look into that because it would be contrary to the rules of cabotage.


Mr. Howe:: I think I am correct when I say that all the ships owned by the McCormick interests are registered in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-Tolls to be fair and reasonable.
Agar Rodney Adamson: Would it be possible under this clause to have a differential in the tolls charged a ship plying between two Canadian ports under Canadian registry and a ship under foreign registry?


Lionel Chevrier: No, that would not be so under this section.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I bring that up because that was one of the extremely contentious issues when the Panama canal was constructed. The United States, which built the canal, for many years had a differential in favour of United States ships because it was contended that ships moving between the east and west coasts were intercoastal ships and therefore should not have to pay tolls. I was wondering if a ship plying from a lower St. Lawrence port to a port on the upper lakes would pay exactly the same toll as a ship of foreign registry coming in from some other continent and carrying goods to an upper lakes port.


Lionel Chevrier: That is right; otherwise the toll would not be fair and reasonable.


Howard Charles Green: This section provides for the setting of tolls which will be high enough to

St. Lawrence Waterway pay the interest on amounts borrowed by the authority, to amortize the principal of amounts so borrowed over a period not exceeding fifty years, and to pay the cost of operating and maintaining the canals and works under the administration of the authority, including all operating costs of the authority and such reserves as may be approved by the minister. Of course this brings up an important point because it involves the whole financing of the seaway. Yesterday the Minister of Defence Production said this corporation was being set up with powers similar to those of the national harbours board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend asked if there was a parallel in any other corporation and I said the parallel would be the national harbours board; but I was referring only to the form of the corporation.


Howard Charles Green: That is sufficient for my submission. There does not seem to be a provision anywhere for a report to parliament; parliament is left entirely out of the picture. Secondly, there is no provision in the bill for calling for tenders for work to be done. Both these provisions are contained in the National Harbours Board Act, chapter 42 of the statutes of 1936. As the minister knows, section 32 of that act reads:
The board shall, as soon as possible but within three months after the termination of each calendar year, submit an annual report to the minister in such form as he may prescribe and the minister shall lay the said report before parliament.
Section 12 of the same act provides for the calling of tenders, and I should like to quote subsection 1 which reads:
(1) Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of the board, the board shall call tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest: or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously or economically executed by the officers and servants of the board or of His Majesty; or
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than ten thousand dollars.
That is the provision for the calling of tenders in the case of the national harbours board. I suggest to the minister that some similar provisions should be written into *this bill covering, first of all, a report to parliament and, secondly, the calling of tenders. Here we have an authority being set up which will spend an amount of money perhaps equal to the amount spent on all the national harbours of Canada. I have not had time to check the amount of money expended on the national harbours, but I would doubt that it is as large as the amount involved in the St. Lawrence seaway. I think it is a

very sound principle that this authority, which is to have such vast powers and is to control such a big project, should report annually to parliament. We must not get these bodies away from the control of parliament.
In this bill there is not even provision for a report to the minister. In the case of the national harbours board, I know it is helpful to get that report each year. I submit that parliament certainly is entitled to get a report from this authority in some way, and I hope the government will agree to an amending section providing for such report.
I would point out to the minister also that this bill contains no provision for the publication of regulations passed by this authority. The national harbours board has to do that, and I see no reason why there should not be some provision in this seaway bill for the publication in the Canada Gazette of the regulations which are passed by the authority.
With regard to the provision making it necessary to call for tenders, we have been getting farther and farther away from that good old-fashioned practice. Time and time again exceptions are made. Here is an authority which is to spend a great deal of our money, and I feel there should be a provision set out in the bill forcing the authority to call for tenders with, of course, whatever exceptions are reasonable. Such a provision seems to have been completely overlooked in this bill, and I believe that is a great mistake. If there is to be no such provision then it will be hard to justify insisting upon calling for tenders for many other types of work, and in my opinion this is a departure from a good practice.


Lionel Chevrier: On the last point raised by the hon. member, namely the reference to a report to parliament, if he looks at section 25 which has to do with the guarantee of loans he will see that when a loan or guarantee is made under that section, parliament must authorize it. There will be, therefore, an opportunity for discussion. Again with reference to the point he raised, the hon. member is not without knowledge that the financial administration measure, which is in the committee on public accounts, provides for an annual report being made to parliament by all crown companies. It is not necessary, therefore, to put a provision in this bill. The object of the financial administration bill is to consolidate the financial aspects of all crown companies so they would have to make annual reports to parliament, and so there could be a greater check on their finances by the department concerned. I believe that meets the point.


Howard Charles Green: That might be good enough in the case of the ordinary crown company, but here we have one set up by statute, and it is probably the most important crown company under dominion authority. What this financial bill will contain by the time it passes the house is open to question. It is still in the public accounts committee, and may very well not pass the house at this session. I believe a provision should be written into this bill that a report will be presented annually to parliament. There are not very many of these companies which do report annually.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Every one of them reports annually.


Howard Charles Green: To parliament?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Certainly.


Howard Charles Green: The national harbours board reports, I know, because I am interested in the Vancouver harbour. There is a report every year, and I find it helpful. I see no reason why there should not be a similar provision in this bill.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no intention that this company will not report to parliament, and I hope the hon. member will not think there is. The point I am making is that there is provision already for all crown companies to report to parliament, under the financial administration bill. For that reason I do not think it is necessary to have a duplication. However, I am not saying that I am going to oppose it. I think it is redundant.


Howard Charles Green: It is not a redundancy yet, because the other bill has not been passed, and it might not be passed at this session.


Lionel Chevrier: The other point the hon. member raised concerns tenders. The reason a section concerning tenders was not put in the bill is that it may be necessary to do a great deal of the work with our own equipment. It might not be possible to get tenders for some of the work. As a matter of fact there is a section in the Ontario agreement which provides that under certain conditions the federal government can perform the work itself. It is for this reason that the tender clause was not put in.


Howard Charles Green: That exception is covered in the National Harbours Board Act. In section 12, subsection 1, paragraph (b) we read: in which from the nature of the work it can he more expeditiously or economically executed by the officers and servants of the board or His Majesty.
That exception is made, as the minister has said.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I do not think the minister should object to introducing this
St. Lawrence Waterway amended section. In the first place, this is not a crown corporation in the ordinary sense of that term. Crown corporations are corporations of the type which usually contemplate the development of a particular enterprise with limited scope, important though it may be. This is a great national venture, and is comparable in many ways with the development and operation of publicly-owned power and other projects of that kind. Certainly there should be a provision for the calling of tenders. There could be the same reservation as there is in the National Harbours Board Act, and as is contained in other acts concerning the use of government equipment under the Department of Public Works where that becomes desirable. I do not believe we should be called upon to rely on a general provision calling for an annual statement, because this is an extremely important operation. In similar operations on the dominion or provincial level I believe there is a specific section calling for the delivery of an annual report to the legislative body from which the power of these organizations emanates. I would ask the minister to agree to have sections covering this point introduced and that the act stand, after having dealt with the other sections.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish I could accept the suggestion of the leader of the opposition, but I do not think it applies here with the same force as it does with regard to other crown companies, for the reason I mentioned earlier. I do not think any harm is going to be done if a reference to a report is not made in this act, because it is covered in the other act. In any event, because of the votes that will have to be dealt with at other sessions, there will be full opportunity for discussion of the seaway activities.


Clarence Decatur Howe: If I may, I should like to raise another point. It must be kept in mind that this act is intended to apply even though we become partners with a United States authority in carrying it out. The purpose is to leave it as flexible as possible so it can apply either as a partner or not. I do not think we should tie ourselves up to regulations which may not be parallel with those of the United States. It stands to reason that the men who operate this authority under the minister would use all reasonable precautions in protecting public funds. In that connection I might point out that the authority will finance itself. The borrowing is only temporary. It is intended that the authority will issue public bonds guaranteed by the government, and that it will be selfsupporting. I think it is purely the point of view of having a flexible arrangement that would cause us to object particularly to
1832	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Waterway public tender; I think if we are bound to public tender and the authority in the United States is not, difficulties may arise.


Howard Charles Green: With regard to the report I would point out to the minister that in the schedule of this other bill there is a list of crown corporations, and it does not include any reference at all, of course, to this one. They are all listed here in schedule C: Canadian Arsenals Limited, Canadian Commercial Corporation, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, Canadian Sugar Stabilization Corporation Limited, Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited, Crown Assets Disposal Corporation, Defence Construction (1951) Limited, and so on.


Lionel Chevrier: It would not be listed there because it was not in existence. But my understanding is that in the earlier part of the bill there is a clause which provides for crown companies-


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is true.


Lionel Chevrier: -making an annual report. I think it covers the point. The point raised by my colleague is, I think, a good one, namely that if we were to tie ourselves down to something which was not necessary in the United States we might be embarrassing ourselves.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I try to be a bit helpful on the point. Section 76 of the financial administration bill is in three subsections. Subsection 1 states that the crown agencies or crown corporations are those listed in the schedule to the act as it now stands. We can skip subsection 2. Subsection 3 of section 76 says that the governor in council may by order add to these various schedules the names of any other bodies that should be there. I think the minister could satisfy me on the point, and perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and the leader of the opposition as well, if he could tell us that it is the intention of the governor in council, once both these bills are in effect, to add the St. Lawrence seaway authority to the appropriate schedule of the financial administration bill.


Lionel Chevrier: I think I can give that undertaking.


Howard Charles Green: You would have to amend the other bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it would not be necessary to amend the other bill. The power is there to add to the schedule by order in council any other crown agency or crown corporation. That was the reason I asked the minister for the undertaking which he has now given.


Howard Charles Green: We are not keen on orders in council. I think the better way to handle the matter-if the other bill goes through after this one-would be to amend the financial administration bill by naming the St. Lawrence seaway authority in a schedule.


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to that procedure, and I am sure that the Minister of Finance will not have any.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
On section 19-Regulations.
Howard Charles Green: What about publication of these regulations in the Gazette?


Lionel Chevrier: These are regulations of the same nature as our canal regulations. As set out here, they have to do with the control of works and property under the jurisdiction of the authority, the regulation of vessels and the like. They will not be different from those regulations. I understand that they are not published but that they are tabled here from time to time. When there are any amendments, the minister tables them from time to time in the house.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 20-Authority to comply with directions of the governor in council.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this section?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. This is in case it may be necessary to enter into an arrangement with the United States authorities in conformity with the 1941 agreement or some modification thereof; then the authority will comply with the directions of the governor in council in so far as the making of arrangements for the construction of the seaway with the United States is concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
On section 22-Non-application of R.S., c. 140.
Howard Charles Green: Why is it necessary to put in this provision that the Navigable Waters Protection Act shall not apply to works undertaken by the authority? Can the necessary exceptions not be made from time to time as the authority does the work?


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose it could be; but it would make for greater clarity and ease of operation if this section is approved, the reason being that when works are performed in navigable waters an application must be made to the Minister of Public Works for his approval and in some cases it is a fairly

lengthy application. In a case such as this, where tremendously large works would be involved, a great deal of processing would have to be done by way of application to the minister. Since the international joint commission is the body that will be disposing of this project through its various divisions, there will then be ample protection from the Navigable Waters Protection Act and for that reason it is being excepted.


Howard Charles Green: Would this section not apply to the waters after the work has been completed? In other words, will the result of the passing of a section of this kind not be that the Navigable Waters Protection Act will not apply to any of the navigable waters in the seaway?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, no.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No. Just the works undertaken by the authority.


Lionel Chevrier: This is with respect to works undertaken by the authority pursuant to this act. After the work is done, the Navigable Waters Protection Act still applies to the St. Lawrence river.


Howard Charles Green: Should that fact not be made clear? The minister intends it to apply only to the construction of works undertaken by the authority. But the way it reads it could be made to apply to the completed works. I think it is just a matter of English.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The Navigable Waters Protection Act applies only to structures. It does not apply to the operation of any works. In other words, if a structure is approved under the Navigable Waters Protection Act before it is built, that structure has complied with the act for all time.


Howard Charles Green: Suppose someone wants to build a wharf or a pier on the seaway. Would the Navigable Waters Protection Act come into the picture?


Lionel Chevrier: He could not build a wharf on the seaway. He could build a wharf off the seaway and the Navigable Waters Protection Act would apply, but no works could be built within the seaway itself, or on the banks of the seaway.


Howard Charles Green: The seaway is not all to be a canal. Part of it would be in the shape of lakes, would it not?


Lionel Chevrier: That is right.


Howard Charles Green: If a person wanted to build a pier on the lake shore would the Navigable Waters Protection Act not apply?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It would apply.


Lionel Chevrier: I would think it would.
St. Lawrence Waterway


Clarence Decatur Howe: If my hon. friend will permit me, this clause says:
The Navigable Waters Protection Act does not apply to works undertaken by the authority pursuant to this act.
In other words, if the authority undertook works it would have to comply with the rulings of the international waterways commission; it would not have to comply with the Department of Public Works administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. One government authority is transferring a limited responsibility to another government authority.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 23 to 28 inclusive agreed to.
On section 29-Coming into force.
Agar Rodney Adamson: This is the last clause, and it deals with commencement. I want to put this question to the minister for clarification. Whether or not we got any co-operation from any part of the United States government we could, and it is our intention to, proceed with this work?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I am afraid that is going pretty far. In the first place, this section indicates when the act shall come into force, and I do not think it would be the intention of the government to proclaim it until such time as the province of Ontario had passed a similar act covering the following bill.


Agar Rodney Adamson: You can take that for granted.


Lionel Chevrier: While we can build a canal on our side, we certainly need some co-operation from the United States government in so far as the processing of the application by the province of Ontario, and the complementary authority on the other side of the line, ' to the international joint commission; and the government of Canada undertakes to do all in its power to hurry and press the thing along, as is indicated in the bill that will follow. Therefore I do not think we can go quite as far as my hon. friend did. I think that puts the position as it is.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The bill that is to follow, which rather complicates the matter, does require compliance with the United States designated authority which, in these circumstances, is the power authority of the state of New York; but if that is not granted we could, as I understand it, proceed with the seaway alone and neglect the power?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, we could.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Economically suicidal as it would be-


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
1834	HOUSE OF
St. Lawrence Power Development Mr. Adamson: -from the power point of view, that still could be done, and if continued opposition were met by this government they would be prepared to proceed with that?


Lionel Chevrier: Well, I think, as my hon.
friend says, undesirable as it would be to proceed with one without the other, this bill gives us the authority to proceed with the other, namely the navigational works.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Lionel Chevrier: the second reading of Bill No. 34, respecting construction of works for the generation of electrical power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Is the minister going to make a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I was just going to say that this is the bill concerning the development of power in the international rapids section of the river. I do not propose to make a lengthy statement for the reason that both resolutions were considered together, and to a large extent I think both bills are being considered together. All this does is implement an agreement made between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario. There are only four clauses in it, the first having to do with the approval by this parliament of the agreement; the next giving power to the province of Ontario to transfer certain lands, and likewise to Canada; the third gives certain powers to the hydro-electric power commission, and gives to the Power Commission Act of Ontario the same powers of expropriation mutatis mutandis as have been contained in the Expropriation Act of Canada. In other words, what this does is confirm the agreement entered into between the two governments of Ontario and Canada for the development of power in the international rapids section of the river.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Speaker, this bill is completely complementary to the other, and it would be unthinkable if one were considered without the other. As a matter of fact they are and must be considered as a joint plan. What I shall have to say on this subject at this time will be short,


but I feel that the record should contain some statistics of the growth of the load of power and the demand for power in Ontario. I shall endeavour very briefly to put that on the record to show how desperately this power is needed in Ontario at the present time.
I think some hon. members do not realize what has happened in Canada since the end of the war. The figures for population, the figures for growth of industry, and the figures for growth of load for primary power I think are probably outstanding for any country in the world. In 1940 the load in Ontario was 2,116,600 horsepower; in 1945, that is at the end of the war,, it had grown to 2,597,400 horsepower; but in 1950, that is in half a decade since the war, it had grown to 3,659,900 horsepower. In other words, in the period since the war the primary load in Ontario has grown no less than 41 per cent. In that period of five years the extra power load very nearly equalled half the total load in Ontario at the end of the war. While figures for gross provincial production show in dollar value an even more astounding gross, there is some degree of reduction owing to the inflated dollar and the lower purchasing power of the dollar. In 1945, however, the gross provincial production was $3-97 billion, while in 1950 this had grown to an estimated $6 * 55 billion, or an increase over 1945 of 64 per cent.
I mention this to show the growth of industrial output which runs concurrently with the growth of primary power, and how these two essential factors in our development run hand in hand. One is complementary to the other, and I give this as an example of why it is necessary and desirable for us to develop all possible sources of primary power, wherever they may be located in Canada. To give an example of this growth, and to show the current rate of increase in growth, let me point out that the gross primary load per 20-minute peak, on a date at the beginning of this session, was 415,086 horsepower greater than the same day a year ago. Or, to express it in another way, it was 32,400 horsepower greater than the Toronto average load for the month, including Leaside. In other words every year the total load for Ontario is growing at a rate equal to the total load for greater Toronto. We think that is an astounding development. It would appear that the load in this province is growing at a rate equal to the load of what is certainly the second, and perhaps is now the leading, industrial city in Canada. That is an example of the astounding growth of the load in Ontario.

Since the end of the war in 1945 there have been installed 1,112,700 horsepower of primary hydroelectric power. There are under contract and under construction
970,000	horsepower. I am using the horsepower unit rather than that of the kilowatt, because the former is a somewhat easier lay term. The same plants, now either completed or under construction, will add a further 892,000 horsepower, or a total under construction of 1,862,000 horsepower. This makes a grand total of 2,975,000 horsepower added or under construction at the present time in Ontario. When one considers the enormous construction that has been undertaken by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, if he did not appreciate the tremendous growth in this area he would conclude that there would be comparative security for at least the medium distant future. But at the present rate of growth, assuming we do not get an acceleration over the 1950 rate of growth-and that is not being borne out-there will be a further power shortage in Ontario in 1957. As we are now in the year 1951, we have at the very outside five years of grace before there may be a further power shortage in Ontario, despite the fact that there has been added or is being added nearly 3 million additional horsepower since the end of the war.
I believe that growth will compare favourably with the growth of any other area at any period, anywhere in the world. I very much doubt if comparable figures anywhere else have ever been established.
Now let us come to the next question, what it will mean if we are denied that power. The cost of steam power is approximately three times the cost of power developed on the St. Lawrence river. Using construction costs of 1949, we may assume that hydroelectric power can be produced on the bus bars at the plant for approximately 3 mills per kilowatt hour. Taking steam at the then rate, we find that the cost will be slightly over 7J mills per kilowatt hour. The original figure for hydroelectric power was 2 mills per kilowatt hour, but to be on the safe side it has been estimated that construction costs will now make it 3 mills per kilowatt hour.
Besides the extra cost to the consumer, there is the problem with steam power of obtaining coal. Certainly the coal for the Windsor generating plant, and up to now, I believe, for the Toronto generating plant, has been purchased from the United States, which further puts out of balance our balance of payments position with that country. Therefore both from the point of view of
St. Lawrence Power Development cheap power and the balance of payments position with the United States it is imperative that this work be proceeded with as soon as possible. I do not propose to go into the figures in detail with respect to the use of power in Ontario and the use of power by the Hydro Electric Power Commission. However, the figures show that nowhere in the world is there such high consumption of electrical energy on a per capita basis as there is in Ontario. This has been brought about progressively and aggressively by the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission, who deserve the greatest credit for the work they have done not only for the industrial and urban consumer but particularly for the farm consumer. I think the record of farm electrification in Ontario is unique anywhere in the world-. They have done this as a public trust in such a way as to make Ontario hydro the best servant the people of Ontario could possibly have.
I mention these facts merely to put them on the record at this juncture. They have all been given before by the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Power Commission,. Mr. Saunders, and by others; but I also do so to show hon. members in the house who do not come from Ontario the growth of the load and the tremendous increase in productivity which has been brought about by cheap and abundant hydroelectric energy. I also do so to show hon. members who do not come from Ontario that it should be a primary function of every provincial government to endeavour to develop every waterpower resource it has, because with the addition of abundant and cheap electrical energy there is phenomenally increased production and population. In other words, it is largely upon electrical energy that the amazing prosperity of Canada has been built, and I hope this project, like the other, will be proceeded with as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
The Chairman:: Shall I report the bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the schedule?


Lionel Chevrier: Shall the schedule carry?


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the schedule carry?


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?

Dominion Elections Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


Lionel Chevrier: the third reading of the bill.
Bill read the third time and passed.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, November 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bradley that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to bring in a measure to amend the Dominion Elections Act to implement the recommendations of the special committee appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, embodied in the draft bill prepared by the said committee and inter alia to make provision for: (a) a greater number of advance polls; and (b) the Canadian prisoners of war voting regulations, 1951.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.
Mr. Diefenbaker:: Possibly the minister would make a general statement so that hon. members who were not on the special committee may know the purposes of this resolution.


Walter Edward Harris: After each general election the chief electoral officer is obliged to make a report to parliament on his experiences during the election, and also to suggest amendments to the elections act, having in mind those experiences. The chief electoral officer did make a report after the 1949 general election, which report was considered by a committee of this house which sat during the session in. the first part of this year. A report was prepared and presented to the house, but not proceeded with in detail because of the lateness of the session. That committee was reconstituted at this session and the bill which had been prepared by the committee of. last session was resubmitted, discussed in detail and reported to the house.
The bill which will follow this resolution is the same as the previous bill with the exception of a few minor changes which have been suggested toy Justice for drafting purposes, and one exception which I shall mention in a minute. In general the bill covers the recommendations of the chief electoral officer, having in mind the improvement of the election laws. It includes quite a substantial revision of the regulations having to do with the taking of the service vote, particularly having in mind the experience of the 1949 election.
The only section in the bill which was not approved and forwarded to the house during the last session is the final one. This was the
IMr. Speaker.]

subject of some discussion by the hon. member for Temiscouata, and has to do with certain French translations. As I have said, otherwise the bill carries out the recommendations of the committee of last session as well as of the committee of this session. I do not recall that there was any particular objection to any of the features of the bill, though there may be some hon. members who think there should be other things in the bill that are not in it.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the minister an extra copy of the bill which will follow this resolution?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry I have not, but I shall endeavour to get one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is true that we do not have a copy of the bill, as this is only the resolution stage, but the committee submitted a draft bill which appears in Votes and Proceedings of Friday, November 16. May I ask the minister if the bill to be founded on this resolution is the same as that draft copy?


Walter Edward Harris: Precisely.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, generally speaking there is no disagreement with what the minister has stated because that represents a factual outline. I should like to ask one question which has to do with the establishment of an advance poll at Wynyard, Saskatchewan. Some difficulty arose during the last election because no advance poll was provided in that area, where a great many railroad workers are located. Therefore I should like to ascertain where advance polls will be provided for in Saskatchewan. I do not know whether the minister has that information at the moment, and I think the difficulty has been remedied by this bill. If not it should be, because a large number of employees of the Canadian Pacific work out of Wynyard as a divisional point and an advance poll should be provided there. Something was done about providing an advance poll in the last election through the actions of the chief electoral officer, but I am not quite clear as to the circumstances that prevailed.


Walter Edward Harris: My recollection is that the election act provides that the chief electoral officer may establish advance polls in certain places if certain conditions are met. A list of advance polls is not attached to this bill, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.


Mr. Murphy:: I should like to make one
observation with respect to this resolution. I notice from the proposed bill that the name is to be changed. I think I indicate the feeling of the people in many provinces,

perhaps the majority of people in the Dominion of Canada, when I say that I dislike the trend that has become apparent in the last few years to change everything that is seemingly offensive to the ears of some. That is noticeable in connection with certain legislation where the word "dominion" has been changed to "Canada".
When the fathers of confederation finally agreed upon a name for this country it was only after a great deal of thought and study. All through the years we have been in general quite satisfied. The leaders of those days were great statesmen, and I have often thought that if what was ordained at that time was good enough for the people and for those great leaders, it should still be good enough for most of the people in the Dominion of Canada.
Some few years ago the telephone books were changed, and just a few weeks ago the Dominion Lands Surveys Act was changed to read "Canada Lands Surveys Act". I am one of those in this house who oppose that trend, and I do not purport to be in the minority in this country. When this question arose in the committee there was some moderate debate. We knew that others would have an opportunity to make a statement when the resolution was presented, to indicate to the people of this country that there was resentment against that trend. I am satisfied that there is such resentment in all parts of Canada.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruce) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, and to change its title to the Canada Elections Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL GALLERY


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the national gallery of Canada to increase the number of members of the board of trustees; to provide that the board may enter into contracts and may dispose of property vested in the board; to provide for a national gallery purchase account and for a national gallery special operating account to meet the expenditures of the board; and to provide further for the appointment in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act of the necessary officers, clerks and employees.
National Gallery


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister make a statement on this resolution?


Walter Edward Harris: I would prefer to make a short statement in committee, if that would be acceptable.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Chairman, in introducing this resolution to amend the National Gallery of Canada Act, may I recall that the national gallery, along with the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts, was established in 1880. For the first twenty-six years of its existence the national gallery made little progress; it had no permanent home, few pictures of any significance, no purchase grant and no qualified staff.
In 1907 the government of the day decided that art had an important place to play in Canadian life and in that year, by order in council, the government established the advisory arts council, composed of three leading citizens prominent in the art field of this country. The council was charged with the duty of advising the minister on all purchases for the national gallery, and on the construction of public monuments and the acquisition of other works of art for the government. The council fulfilled its duty well. A qualified curator was employed and the national gallery grew rapidly and soundly by the able handling of the modest grants made by parliament for purchases from year to year.
In 1913 the national gallery was incorporated by act of parliament. The advisory arts council became a board of trustees to manage and develop the national gallery under the supervision of the Minister of Public Works. The act of 1913 proved to be a very satisfactory piece of legislation and served its purpose acceptably for many years, during which time regional art galleries fostered by the national gallery were established in many parts of the country. During that time also the work of Canadian artists became wideband favourably known in most countries of the world, and Canadian public interest in the fine arts showed a most encouraging growth, as described in the report of the royal commission on national development in the arts, letters and sciences, popularly
referred to as the Massey report.
*
During these thirty-eight years the national gallery, from a practically unknown institution, has come to be widely recognized, not only at home but also abroad, by reason of its unique extension service, which I believe is superior to that of any similar institution in the world. Its collections have been reviewed from time to time by some

National Gallery
of the world's best experts and it is agreed, I am informed, that they are among the finest of the smaller collections on this continent. These pictures are widely lent throughout the country under appropriate conditions, and it is expected that this extension work of the gallery will increase from year to year, as foreshadowed in the Massey report.
It is to implement some of the leading recommendations of that report that the present bill is being introduced. The new act preserves the substance of the act of 1913, with a number of important improvements. The board, which for many years was composed of three trustees, was in 1922 increased to five members, but may now, under the present bill, consist of from five to nine members, reflecting the country's wider interest in the institution.
A new section provides that the national gallery purchase grant will not lapse at the end of the fiscal year, but that purchase funds may be accumulated from year to year for important additions to the national collection. This provision will facilitate the work of the board, and put the national gallery more nearly on an equality with competing galleries. Section 4 (1) provides that appointments to the national gallery staff shall be made by the civil service commission, which has been the practice followed by the board for the past thirty years. Clause 3 (4) gives the board the power, with the approval of the minister, to sell, lease, exchange or otherwise dispose of any property which it is not considered desirable to retain in the national gallery.
The bill also makes provision for the design in industry section established on an experimental basis four years ago. This branch was formed to study the problems of industrial design with the objective of raising the design quality of Canadian manufactured products.
To sum up, this bill gives the national gallery greater opportunity to foster and encourage public interest in the fine and applied arts. I am sure the house would like this institution to be able to play an increasingly important role in our national life.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one or two questions and make one or two observations. Perhaps the minister will tell us a little more concerning what is meant by "entering into contracts", or perhaps that has no significance beyond what he has said already.
At a time when we are asked to concentrate so much on, and to make such ample material

provisions for matters of defence, matters of social security and all the other matters which come before us and which are so pressing, it is perhaps difficult to convince ourselves that a matter of this kind, which cannot be assessed in any material terms, can be equally pressing. Yet I think a moment's reflection will enable us to realize that it is important. I suppose one of the things of which we are most constantly reminded is that, in this struggle in which we are engaged, it is not wholly a matter of material things; it is a matter of maintaining the whole fabric and quality of our civilization.
Even those of us who are less competent to express an expert opinion on the importance of art realize that our civilization is made up of things of that kind, things of the spirit. We do realize, too, that our whole civilization would be infinitely poorer if we did not have among us people who are devoting their lives to artistic pursuits, who know about them and who, so to speak, keep the flag flying in respect of those matters. Therefore I am quite sure we shall all welcome what the minister is saying to us, and we shall be anxious that proper steps be taken.
As the minister has already said, the Massey report has brought this and other kindred matters to our minds. However much we may be obsessed with the difficulties of finding money for the other things we are doing, I feel that we must not neglect these things. The more one looks about the more one realizes the many things that are pressing in on our civilization, and the more that some of the sanctions that supported our civilization decades ago are not so strong as they were. It seems to me, too, that we must realize that things such as those for which the national gallery stands must be supported in spite of all the other claims on. our time and our purse. Those are all the remarks I desire to make, Mr. Chairman, but before I sit down I should like to ask the minister if he would answer my question as to whether the word "contracts" has any other significance.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Chairman, while art may be said to be international in its scope, and a great work of art may be said to belong to history, nevertheless increasingly there are individual artists who belong to Canada and who are finding in the Canadian scene much scope for their particular genius. There have come into being also, over the years, associations of creative artists and those who are interested in art. Thus it is a pleasure to note that in Canada we are making progress in a desired direction. It is not so long ago that one heard much talk of the inferiority

complex which bedevilled Canadians in the matter of the arts. In our writing and in our painting we were held, and with some justice, to be mere imitators, mostly of the European or of the British school. If that were once true, I think it is fair to say that it is true no longer; for in our literature and even more in our painting we are becoming more mature, and we are beginning to use art as an expression of Canadianism.
Sir, I know little about art; I am certainly no authority upon it. However, I know what pleases me; and I think that to please must be the first function of art anywhere. In so far as art brings pleasure to the Canadian public or opens up to the masses of our population new vistas of enjoyment-enjoyment which up to the present has been unknown to many of them-I think that art as such should be encouraged.
By reason of its introduction of this bill, it would appear that the Canadian government holds the same view. The very existence of this bill is an acknowledgment on the part of the government that art has become an important phase of our national life. I suppose one might synopsize the provisions of this bill by saying simply they strengthen the hand of the board of trustees of the national gallery of Canada. The bill provides for an increase in the number of members of the board to which I have referred. It provides for added staff which I think is necessary, and it gives the board authority for the making of expenditures which it deems necessary; to that end, funds will be placed at the board's disposal.
It is not my intention to discuss here this evening all the - functions which the board is performing or the functions which it may perform with its facilities increased as they will be by the passage of this bill. But there is one principle I would lay down. Just as a taste for good literature is developed only by the reading of it, so does appreciation of art increase by the viewing of it; it can increase only in that way. If one grants that principle-and there will be few who will deny it-then the opportunity to view good pictures must be brought to the greatest possible number of people. That, increasingly, must be the chief task and the primary responsibility of this board. That undertaking involves a decentralization of activity. There must, of course, be some central source of that activity, namely a central national gallery. Ottawa, the capital of this country, seems to be the logical place for it. That is
National Gallery
where it now is, although the present facilities are much too meagre, and the space is much too limited in what we now call the national gallery.
Such a central point is the natural home for our national collection of paintings; but there must be co-operation between the national gallery and local galleries throughout the country if the principle I have expounded is to be acted upon. From this central gallery there must go out collections which we may be fortunate enough to borrow from other countries abroad, and exhibitions of particular Canadian artists. I commend the board for having already made available to the public of Canada reproductions of great paintings at reasonable prices. I am thinking of the silkscreen prints-I think that is the technical name of them-for public buildings, schools, and other educational institutions throughout the country. These become a source of education in art appreciation, which in turn might become a stimulus and inspiration to artistic endeavour.
Governments are fond of telling us that in all things they must be practical. I am happy that this government and this intensely practical house should give at least transient attention to what are commonly called things cultural.
In this connection may I pay tribute to the Massey commission for its stupendous accomplishment towards encouragement of the arts. The report of that commission has met with a fine response throughout this whole country, and has aroused wide interest among the Canadian people. I have not yet had time to read what it recommends in the matter of a national gallery, but from a study of other parts of the report in which I was greatly interested, I can anticipate with confidence the soundness of those recommendations.
We are pleased to support this bill as a group, and are pleased to endorse the request of the board and other interested organizations for a new and satisfying national gallery. We in this C.C.F. group, and particularly our leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, have on many occasions espoused the cause of the arts. We have not only advocated for Ottawa a great national gallery worthy of this nation, of which we now have only a mere imitation; we have been even more urgent and persistent in our request for a national library of which we have not yet a semblance.
Sir, I think it can be said that we in this country have reached the end of the pioneer stage. Canada has grown up. Canada is a

National Gallery
great and wealthy nation. The needs of the body-if I may think of the matter in human terms-have become satisfied. Let us now reach out for the things of the mind and spirit. May I once more-I have done it before-cite the quotation from St. Augustine which adorns one of the front pages of the fine report to which I have referred:
A nation is an association of reasonable beings united in a peaceful sharing of the things they cherish; therefore, to determine the quality of a nation, you must consider what those things are.
May it be said of this nation in days to come, when history will have had an opportunity to estimate her quality, that she chose early to cherish the right things, the things which make a nation truly great.
We support the resolution with the greatest of pleasure.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Mr. Chairman, what I have to say will take only a few minutes. The first thing I want to say is that I hope the minister will do everything possible-and this bill gives me the opportunity to say it-to relieve the congestion in the national museum where the art gallery is housed. I agree with him that the art gallery does contain a small but worth-while collection. A great part of it, though, is stored in cases underground. There are some very valuable objects in the museum which never are seen by the public, which are stored in the cellars and in many other places, I understand, in Ottawa. The overcrowding of that building is simply scandalous, and I hope that immediate steps will be taken to do two things. The first thing-I speak here as a mining engineer- is to do something about the proper housing of the geological survey, which is taking a tremendous amount of space in that building. It is not a proper place for the geological survey. They are taking up space that should be given to the scientific work of the museum. I say this because I had several people working in the museum complain to me last year about it.
We want to see the collections we have. Let us not bury them. That is the first thing. The second thing is this. We regard ourselves in Canada, and take much pleasure in considering ourselves, as Philistines. We say we have not much art. We rather think of ourselves as rough-hewn pioneers and that sort of thing. It may interest the committee to know that the famous collection from the Kunsthistorische (art history) museum in Vienna, known on tour as the Hapsburg treasures, showed a profit only in the city of Toronto. The only city on the entire continent of North America where sufficient people showed interest to make the exhibit
[Mr. Knight.1
a profitable and paying venture was Toronto. The other cities across this country, including the main cities in the United States, did not show the same interest as was shown in Toronto. That is something which shows the general interest in art amongst the people of Canada, and belies the happy Philistine idea which we endeavour to cherish amongst ourselves so much.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Harris (Grey-Bruoe) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, respecting the National Gallery of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
At 6.15 p.m. the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock. CANADIAN FORCES ACT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate agrees to the amendment made by the House of Commons to the sixteenth amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 21, respecting the Canadian forces.



CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT

Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of National Defence) moved:: That this sixteenth amendment, as amended, be now concurred in; and that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours thereof.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is it all straightened out now?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, December 4, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Bradley-Mr. Dion in the chair:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Civil Service Act in respect of the tenure of office and salaries of the commissioners.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is the Acting Secretary of State?
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Bradley): Mr. Chairman, I shall try to handle this resolution to the best of my ability.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is good to know that this function has been added to the many duties of the Minister of Public Works. As the minister knows, in the light of such information as the house was able to get at an earlier stage, some of us on this side found ourselves opposed to the measure forecast by this resolution.
As we understand the measure, it is proposed to take out of the statute setting up the civil service commission any reference to the amount of salary to be paid to the civil service commissioners. Rather, it is planned that their salaries from here on will be fixed by order in council. We are opposed to that move, and we signified our opposition by voting against the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair for the house to resolve itself into committee of the whole on this resolution.
I wish to repeat that I was quite disappointed at the proposal as outlined to us by the Secretary of State. It was a surprise to us. We understood, from the wording of the resolution now before us, that it was a very simple proposal relating to the tenure of office and the salaries of the commissioners. I, for one, thought all that would be proposed would be that the Auditor General's recommendation would be carried out, and that the entire salary of each commissioner would be spelled out in the statute rather than having part of it in the statute and part of it in the annual estimates. However, when we had a brief statement from the Secretary of State it turned out that such was not the intention. Rather it is proposed to take this fixing of the salaries of civil service commissioners away from parliament altogether.
I think it is quite clear that the civil service commissioners should stand in the same relationship to parliament as does the Auditor General and also the chief electoral officer. In respect of each of these other officials it is clearly recognized that they are responsible to parliament, not to the government. They are appointed under that interesting piece of machinery known as the great seal; and they are officers of the whole of parliament rather than officials of the government. The civil service commissioners are not appointed in the same way; but the whole theory of the civil service commission is that government positions should be removed as far as possible from political control. That is a battle that was fought and won many years ago. I think it is an integral part of that situation that the salaries of the civil service commissioners should be fixed not by the government, not by order in council but by parliament.
As I have already indicated, I feel that their relationship to us should be the same as that
Civil Service Act
of the other two top-ranking officials I have mentioned. I note that the salary of the Auditor General is fixed by chapter 27 of the Statutes of 1931. The whole of the salary he gets is the salary set out in and determined by that statute.


Alphonse Fournier: What is the amount of the salary?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is $15,000.


Alphonse Fournier: That is 1931. That salary was fixed by statute in 1931.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, is it not still the same salary that was fixed by statute? Although I have looked at it fairly closely, for all I know it may be that in the financial administration act there is some provision to change the salary of the Auditor General. If it is being changed in that way, then at least that is the proper way to change it.
I was about to point out that the salary of the chief electoral officer is also fixed by statute, namely chapter 46 of the statutes of 1938, as amended. And, to anticipate the question of the Minister of Public Works, I may say that his salary is $10,000 a year.
Up to the present time the principle that the salary of the civil service commissioners should be set by statute has been recognized by the fact that their salaries were fixed by chapter 53 of the statutes of 1947. Apparently the government has taken the view for a number of years that the salaries fixed for the commissioners by that statute were not sufficient. So for a number of years they have had a special estimate providing for a supplement of $2,000 a year. As I have already isaid, the Auditor General has commented unfavourably on the practice of continuing to pay supplements in respect of salaries in that way, and has suggested that the appropriate statute should be amended. But instead of taking the Auditor General's advice, which has been advocated from the floor of the house many times, the government is taking this further step of taking away from parliament altogether the fixing of the salaries of the civil service commissioners.
Let me point out that the issue here is not the amount of the salaries of the civil service commissioners. It may be that their salaries are not high enough. It may be that a case can be made to increase them. It may be that that is the desire of the government. But I contend that if it is the intention of the government to increase their salaries at this time, it should be done by amending the act accordingly, and it should be left so that any further changes in their salaries would be made in the same way, by a proper parliamentary statute.

Civil Service Act
I insist that the civil service commissioners should be on the same basis as the Auditor General and the chief electoral officer. For that reason I am opposed to the resolution.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon, member for Winnipeg North Centre. I should like to ask the minister if we may at least have some suggested reason why this is being done. So far as I can recall, it did not seem very clear whether we had ever convinced the Secretary of State that there was any need to give a reason. Perhaps we may be able to convince the genial Minister of Public Works that we are at least entitled to a reason. I should like to emphasize what has been said by the hon. member who preceded me, namely that I would have thought this was one of the worst places to begin to chisel a little-we are getting used to it, but every now and then we rebel

at the rights of parliament and to aggrandize the executive just that much more at our expense. The reason I think this is about the very worst place to begin is, as has already been said, that surely the civil service commissioners should have for the discharge of their duties the greatest possible independence. How else they can get that except from a statute under the authority of parliament I do not know.
I think the two illustrations that have been given are admirable, the Auditor General and the chief electoral officer; and it certainly will be very hard to satisfy me, and I hope a lot of people in this house, that there can be any reason for this proposed method of dealing with the position of the civil service commissioners. Surely it is tampering with their position. Nobody can doubt that. It means that now, like so many other people, they are going to be dependent upon the good will of the government. We do not always rate that very highly on this side of the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We could also add the board ' of transport commissioners as an example.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Therefore I suggest to the minister that at the very least we should have what we have not had yet, a suggestion of a reason for what is proposed to be done.


Alphonse Fournier: I believe that on December 4 I certainly made a blunder by informing the house of the contents of the bill. That is due to my inexperience, but I thought that by giving details I would get the resolution through. However, I have lost that illusion because we had a vote on the question and I realized that we were not voting on the principle of the resolution but were only trying to stop Mr. Speaker from

leaving the chair. The motion was that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to consider the resolution in committee. Some members did not even want Mr. Speaker to leave the chair for the chairman to read the resolution in committee so that we might consider it.
Where my hon. friends are making a mistake is that they believe that increases or decreases in the salaries of the commissioners would make them more dependent. I think too highly of the three civil service commissioners to believe that an increase or decrease in their salaries would affect their sense of justice and fairness, and that they would not apply the provisions of the law as well if in 1931 they had been voted by parliament a salary fixed for all time to come.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is not a reason; that is just a collateral circumstance.


Alphonse Fournier: Perhaps my reasons do not appeal to the hon. gentleman, but I know they appeal even to the members of the civil service commission. There are two phases of the bill. In the first place we are trying to avoid compulsory retirement for them at age 65. That is the first part of the bill. We wish to have the power to extend the tenure of the chairman and commissioners. I do not think the house would object to that feature of the bill. It is being done for a good many civil servants.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is
another matter. You are not giving us the reason.


Alphonse Fournier: If you will permit the bill to come before the house you will be able to read it, and you will see it is right in the bill. I know if I discuss the bill at this stage it will take me longer to get the resolution through, but I think in all fairness I should point out that the bill is divided in two parts. One deals with tenure of office. The situation is that when a commissioner reaches the age of 65 we are barred from extending his term of office, and under the bill we are providing that we may increase the number of years that a commissioner may remain a member of the civil service commission. We could not do that if we had to use the method of voting money by estimates. The idea really came from the report of the Auditor General to the effect that instead of having an estimate, which is repugnant to certain members of the house, we should seek authority to increase their salaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what the Auditor General recommended.

Civil Service Act


Alphonse Fournier: The Auditor General does not like legislation by appropriations or estimates. That is what he says. By passing this bill we will avoid that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no; the Auditor General said: Do not do it by putting items in the estimates; do it by putting it in the statute.


Alphonse Fournier: The Auditor General did not say that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the resolution was
explained by the Secretary of State, it is not to be put in the statute at all. It is to be turned over to the governor in council.


Alphonse Fournier: I hope I can go ahead now. We had the thought that, instead of introducing an estimate which nobody would discuss in the house when it came up, we would introduce a bill and have the matter aired before the members of the house. We do not ask every member to agree with the proposals of the government, but we have given a lot of study to this matter.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Who?


Alphonse Fournier: If you look at the present statute you will see, so far as the first point I was dealing with is concerned, that when the commissioners reach the age of 65 they are out. The present commissioners are men of experience. They are known for their competence and fairness and for following the provisions of the law as to the merit system. We thought we were fortunate in having such men, and we would like to extend the terms of office of some of them at least beyond the age of 65. I do not believe my hon. friend is an old man or is incapable because he has reached that age, and these commissioners are in the same position. I like to see my old friends in the opposition come back here even if they are more than 65 because they are sometimes useful to their country, their party, and not often to the government except that sometimes by accident they do help us.
As to the question of fixing the salaries, I understand that the opposition would like to see the commissioners put in the same position as the Auditor General or the chief electoral officer who are appointed by vote of the house. There may be some good reasons for appointing the three commissioners by vote of the house and having them responsible only to parliament.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: You are talking about salaries now. Do not twist the argument.


Alphonse Fournier: There may be some reason for that, but both parties have been in power and have held famous investigations by committees of the house, and at no time
was it recommended that the commissioners be appointed in that manner. All these committees made very complete reports on the civil service, but on the question of the appointment of the commissioners it was understood that they would be appointed for a term by the governor general in council during good behaviour. That is where their independence comes into the situation. I really cannot understand the argument of both my hon. friends when they say that because the governor in council would fix the salary these people would lose that quality of independence and knowledge and would be thinking every day: We will not get the same increase as deputy ministers or high officials of the government whose salaries are fixed by the governor in council. I think very highly of our commissioners. I think they are public spirited, and I do not think the arguments my hon. friends have brought forward would affect their decisions in the administration of the civil service commission. At this time the government does not agree that these gentlemen should be appointed by parliament, but believes that they should be appointed by the governor general in council. In the past their salaries were fixed by statute, and that practice continued for thirty years before anyone mustered up sufficient courage to bring in a bill to increase their salaries, which in many quarters were thought to be rather high.
In order to be fair and just to these commissioners we placed an item in the estimates some years ago providing for an additional $2,000. The statute provides that the chairman shall receive $10,000 a year and each of the commissioners $8,000. At the time the statute was passed those salaries were comparable to the salaries paid to other civil servants occupying a like position, but today they are not. That is why we thought in all fairness we should have the item in the estimates. Today the chairman receives $12,000 and the commissioners, $10,000.
Since the item was first included in the estimates other officials occupying comparable positions have received increases. If the salaries were fixed today by statute it might happen that in six months the statute would be outmoded. We are simply trying to be fair to these gentlemen. I submit that we should either pass this resolution or vote on the principle of whether these gentlemen should be appointed by parliament or by the governor in council. It is the policy of the government to have the appointments made by the governor in council.


Mr. Harkness:: A few minutes ago the
minister suggested that the idea of looking after this matter by way of estimates was

Civil Service Act
repugnant to a number of hon. members. I should like to know who those hon. members are.


Alphonse Fournier: I would not like to
name names, but if the hon. member had attended in the house as I have he would be able to pick out members who do not like the fixing of salaries by special estimates which amount to legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would be glad to answer
the hon. member for Calgary East. It is repugnant to me and to the Auditor General.


Mr. Blackmore:: I should like to express
complete approval of the action being taken by the minister to continue the service of these men. I have always looked upon it as being rather foolish to think we have to dismiss a man when he reaches 65 years of age. However, I am not quite satisfied that the determination of these salaries should be in the bands of the governor in council. Is it the desire of the government that they be able to increase the salaries of the civil service commissioners without reference to parliament?


Alphonse Fournier: When the cost of
living increased and it was thought that the salaries of the civil servants should be increased, general approval was expressed in the house for these increases. But it was found that nothing could- be done for the civil service commissioners because their salaries had been fixed by statute some years ago. We then brought in a special item in the estimates increasing those -salaries by $2,000. Since that date other civil servants occupying comparable positions have received further increases. All we are seeking to do is what is done in the case of deputy ministers, many of whom receive far more by way of salary.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should
like to set the minister straight on one point. I do not think anyone has suggested that these commissioners should be appointed by parliament.


Alphonse Fournier: The hon. member
for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The suggestion was that their salaries -should be fixed by parliament. I would point out that no one has ever suggested that parliament should appoint judges, but we do fix their salaries.


Alphonse Fournier: It has been argued
that it would affect the independence of these gentlemen if the governor in council fixed their salaries, but I argued that I did not think a man occupying the position of chairman or commissioner of the civil service

commission would be affected by having his salary fixed, either by parliament or by the governor in council.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister seems to be trying to put us in the position of having criticized the civil service commission. There was nothing of that -nature in our minds. I think the minister and- any other -reasonable man must admit that their positions would be that much -more independent if their salaries were not fixed by the cabinet.


Angus MacInnis: I think the government
by introducing this amendment to the Civil Service Act is taking a retrograde step. Even if it does not affect the freedom of action of the civil service commissioners, I think it is wrong psychologically to put them under the governor in council. If the term of one -of the commissioners has ended after serving ten years, the act could be amended to provide, as is provided in other acts, that he can be appointed for a further term. The appointment is completely within the jurisdiction of the governor in council -at the present time and it would not be necessary to amend the act.
Regardless of how the salaries of the deputy ministers and others are fixed, I think it would be far better that these -salaries should be treated like the salaries of judges. They should be set by statute, and when increases have to be made they could be made by amending the statute. I regret very much that the government has decided to do something which is not necessary in order to accomplish w-hat they say they want to accomplish.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall I report the resolution?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.
Resolution reported on division, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Fournier, Hull (for Mr. Bradley)
thereupon moved- for leave to introduce Bill No. 43, to amend the Civil Service Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING ACT


James Joseph McCann: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Dion in the chair.

On section 1-"Minister''.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, as the house is aware, since this bill was given second reading it has been reviewed by the special committee of the house on radio broadcasting. As tonight the house will be reviewing the bill, it may be that the discussion will be somewhat broken up in order to relate it to the particular sections. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, I might say that the special committee has completed its public sittings but has not yet written its report, so the discussion tonight is necessarily in advance of the writing of the report, let alone its tabling in the house. However, having regard to the rather advanced stage of this session, I suppose it will be too much to expect that there will be an opportunity for discussing the report of the special committee when it is tabled.
I feel it is unfortunate that the bill should be before the house before we actually have the report of the special committee. I am sure we would have had a more concentrated and more helpful discussion if the house had the advantage of having before it the report of the special committee.
May I say this in general about the meetings of the committee. I think all members who were present will agree that the meetings were instructive. We had the assistance of the senior officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and questioned them freely. They gave us a good deal of information. The committee also had assistance from representatives of the Canadian association of broadcasters, representing the great majority of the private broadcasting stations in Canada. They gave their views on a broad range of subjects, and were very appropriately thanked by the committee for their helpful presentation. The committee also spent a day in Montreal examining the Radio Canada building, and seeing some demonstrations of television which were indeed interesting to all members present. In other words, the sittings of the committee, Mr. Chairman, were helpful to all concerned, and I think the committee has performed a service to the house and to the country.
The relationships between this committee and the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have always been very cordial. Even those who disagreed with the policy of the broadcasting corporation on some of the matters in which policy has played a leading part have always been glad and happy in the association of the committee and those senior officials.
The subject of programs did provide a source of some agitation in the committee
Canadian Broadcasting Act meetings this year. I do not want to discuss that subject, in detail in advance of the writing of the committee's report. I believe the report may have something to say on that subject this year. But I feel that all hon. members of this house should do two things in expressing their views on the subject of programs. First of all we should vindicate the principle of freedom of expression. Some representations are being made through the mails these days to members of the house that seem to suggest some people are becoming very panicky, and believe there is some effort afoot to interfere with legitimate freedom of expression on the air. I do not believe anyone in this house is going to suggest there should be any tampering or interference with the established principle of freedom of expression. On the other hpnd, as applied to this vitally important means of communication, we must have regard at all times, and particularly when the control of radio broadcasting in Canada is vested in a publicly owned and appointed board of governors, to the necessity of providing balance in the presentation of points of view.
Much of the criticism that has been levelled at certain programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation might well have been avoided if the corporation, instead of making a series of broadcasts by persons having a particular point of view, had sought at the same time to provide balance in the presentation of that point of view by giving equal opportunity on the same series to those who had a different point of view to express. It seems to me that those who are charged under the present set-up with the control of broadcasting in Canada, not only on the channels occupied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but on others which are after all under residual control of that corporation, should take great care to see that due respect is paid to the fundamental convictions of the people of this country. We heard that certain programs offended the religious sensibilities of people in Canada. We heard criticism of other programs because in a political sense they leaned too much to one particular point of view.
Recognizing the difficulty, and asserting at all times that the principle of freedom must be vindicated, we must nevertheless insist, in the first place, that anything in the nature of unnecessary offence to the religious and moral convictions of the people of the country must be avoided, and in the matter of programs having a political flavour, or news commentators and political commentators, a balance must be preserved. There is one situation that has been discussed more than once-I mention this because it struck some of us very
i 846

Canadian Broadcasting Act forcibly at the time-concerning the series of political commentators under the title "Capital Report". When it came to totalling the number of those who participated in that particular series, that element of balance was not found present which the board of governors subscribes to, we are told, as a principle. There was criticism of this series which I for one voiced in the committee because those participating in it were, on the whole, leftist in their tendencies. That was the flavour of the reports. When we came to get the figures of those participating we found that out of 41 broadcasts in that iseries 28 had been delivered by one individual, Matthew Halton. Mr. Halton is an accomplished commentator; but in the opinion of most people I think his political views and comments are somewhat left of centre. When we come to examine the the other participants in that series, thinking in terms of balance, we find that Mr. Robert McKenzie had two; Milton Shulman, 3; Elmore Philpott, 3; Herbert Steinhouse, 3; Gerard Fay, 1; Jon Kimche, 1; Andrew Cowan, 1; Douglas Lachance, 1; Peter Stursberg, 1. When that matter was brought directly to the attention of the chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation he readily agreed that it did not represent balance in a series where the point of view of the commentator is of no little importance. I am glad to say the chairman said that the unbalance in that particular series would be redressed.
I do not propose to repeat what was said three weeks ago in the debate on second reading of this bill. The subject of the fundamental method of control of radio broadcasting in Canada has been before the house on more than one occasion. This bill does not present an opportunity of seeking a test of opinion in the house on that subject because there is no one section that provides a vehicle for testing that opinion thereon. One must therefore content oneself at this stage with one or two general observations.
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation strongly supports the present system of broadcasting in Canada, under which control of all broadcasting is vested in the board of governors. The Canadian association of broadcasters, on the other hand, took the position that there should be an independent regulatory tribunal which would have controlling powers so far as may be necessary to preserve freedom on the airwaves. Their contention was that there is no necessity for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to sit in judgment upon them.
We must never lose sight of the fact that radio broadcasting has become a highly competitive business. We have an abundance


of evidence to show that as between private broadcasting stations in similar localities or in the same localities competition is exceedingly keen. As between private stations on the one hand and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on the other, competition operates so far as is permitted by the corporation, and that competition is keen. The problem therefore is inescapable: is it right and fair that in that area in which keen competition exists, the system of control and regulation should be such that one of the competitors exercises control over the whole field, including its competitors? That is the problem.
. To meet that problem Dr. Arthur Surveyer, one of the members of the Massey commission, put forward some concrete proposals which I am bound to say commend themselves strongly to some of us. They are not exactly the views put forward on that subject by the Canadian association of broadcasters, but Dr. Surveyer put forward on that subject views which I wish there were an opportunity of testing effectively in the house, so hon. members might determine whether the house can disregard those views and pass them by. His view was that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should carry on as an operating body, that the board of governors should be reduced in size, and that there should be established by act of parliament a separate tribunal which would exercise regulatory power over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private stations alike, in so far as regulation may be necessary. As the matter of the licensing of stations is extremely important, it would necessarily follow that the body to advise the Minister of Transport, who issues the licenses for transmitting stations, should not be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation but should be this independent regulatory body.
We have not before us the report of the committee. We simply have those two points of view put before the committee. While they do not exactly correspond to the majority and minority reports of the Massey commission, nevertheless there is some resemblance to those reports in the views expressed on the one hand, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation officials and, on the other hand, by the representatives of the Canadian association of broadcasters. For my own part, Mr. Chairman, I wish to express clearly my view that the recommendations of the minority report of Dr. Arthur Surveyer, a Montreal engineer of high distinction, contain a sensible proposal for handling this problem of the regulation of broadcasting in Canada.

Then, sir, there is one other subject, namely television, which I should like to mention on this opening section. What I have to say with regard to the method of financing the operations of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation I shall reserve for section 6 of the bill. The subject of television 'is of striking importance. We are told that there are some 60,000 television receiving sets in Canada. These receiving sets are today receiving United States programs. They are located within reach of the border. There is today no Canadian television. Why is there not? The answer is that it was policy on the part of the government-policy which agreed with the views of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- that there should not be Canadian television hitherto. On the one hand, when private applicants came forward and, as long ago as early 1948, made application for television licenses, those applications were simply held in a state of suspense. There are four such applications pending for two available channels in Toronto. There are two applications pending for three available channels in Montreal. There are applications pending in Hamilton, Winnipeg, New Westminster and several other Canadian cities. With the exception of one application from Hamilton which was dismissed, the others, for periods running up to almost four years, have been held simply in a state of suspense. Why? Because it was government policy, as well as policy of the board of governors of the corporation, that no private television be hitherto permitted in Canada.
What has the corporation done as regards television itself? Well, after a slow start, for which I think the government is principally responsible rather than the corporation, the corporation has been pressing its efforts to provide television over two channels assigned to them, one in Toronto and one in Montreal. When the committee of the 1950 session reviewed this matter, it was told by the officials of the corporation it was their hope and expectation that television programs would be available from these two stations by September last. It is a matter of disappointment to all concerned, including the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, that shortages of materials and delays arising out of that fact have defeated that hope. Now the earliest date by which the officials of the corporation hold out any hope of television over these two stations is the summer of 1952, and apparently there is some uncertainty as to whether television may be expected even then.
The first stage of development contemplates that television will be provided over these
Canadian Broadcasting Act two stations. There will in time be connections between Toronto and Montreal. There will be a network; there will be provision for relays and kinescope recordings, and efforts of that kind. The whole undertaking in this first stage will cost approximately $5,225,000, and will require at least a couple of years to complete.
What of the other areas in Canada which are unquestionably just as anxious to have Canadian television programs made available to them as the more fortunate people of Montreal and Toronto? That depends on the second stage of development, Mr. Chairman. Some effort will be made in the first stage to provide by kinescope recordings television in some of the other principal cities. For transmission of television from stations in those other principal cities in Canada they may have to wait for some considerable time, and the cost is going to be very great. We were told in the committee on Monday that the cost to complete this second stage may well run to something like $15 million; and there will be required, in addition to what has now been provided1 by parliament over and above commercial revenues from the sale of sponsored programs, $10 million during the first four years of operation.
Now, sir, these are the plans of the national system. I have indicated that the government is to be held responsible for the fact that these plans have been held back, and that today we are still without Canadian television in this country. One does not underestimate the difficulties. This is a new field, and I want to be quite fair in my approach to it. There are very great difficulties involved in television, in launching this new form of communication.
The plans of the corporation do not contemplate, even at the beginning, operations for more than perhaps three hours a day on these two stations. It will take a good deal of time to develop programs, to develop engineering and program techniques, to the point where Canadians will be able to have sustained enjoyment of television programs. In the face of all that, and the responsibility the government must bear for holding back the development of television under other auspices, as well as delay in the early stages of the development of television by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself, one asks how the government hopes to justify denying entry into this field to those who are quite prepared to come in and take their chances.
It is not enough, surely, for the government to take a paternalistic attitude and

Canadian Broadcasting Act say: Well, we do not want to see you risk your money. These people are quite prepared to come in and run the risks-and they are very great risks-of losing money in the early stages of television. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation expects in the early stages of its operations to incur substantial expenditures; and those who made application for television licences well knew that for a period of time they might incur very heavy losses. But, sir, they were quite prepared to do it. In the face of their willingness to pioneer in this field, to take their chances and provide programs, it was the policy of this government to close and bolt the door, and to deny to any private interests any opportunity of entry into this field. What is the result? These dozen or more applications are still in a state of suspense.
The majority on the Massey commission made some recommendations on this subject that I for one cannot support. At page 303 they set forth this, among other recommendations:
c. That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs and that all private stations be required to serve as outlets for national programs.
That recommendation, literally applied, will mean that until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has brought into effect stage one of its television plans, which will not even commence until at least next summer, no consideration will be given to any of these applications for television licences. They are still to be left in a state of suspense. Moreover, sir, let me remind you that the opening of broadcasting from Toronto and Montreal simply marks the opening of stage one of the television plans of the corporation, and it may be another couple of years before stage one is fully put into operation by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. That leaves us with this unhappy consequence: that apparently it will be two or three years before any consideration is to be given these pending applications. In the meantime the door is closed to anybody else in Canada wanting to enter this field. It means that because the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is encountering delays-there are shortages of different kinds now and their plans will have to be proceeded with under the limitations of finance-Canadians are not going to have much television in this country for at least several years to come, and they will not have television on any very substantial scale for apparently a great many years to come. And this is government policy.
It is the government that, through the Minister of Transport, issues the licences. The

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation advises the minister with regard to the issuance of those licences. The policy in these matters or views on policy are shared by the government and the board of governors of the corporation. Apparently they see eye to eye, and I for one say it is most regrettable that Canadians are to be denied television.
Let us not be turned aside, sir, by any talk about undue commercialism or an excess of United States content in these programs, because, sir, the content of programs is still subject to the regulatory powers of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, No one has ever suggested in this House of Commons, so far as I am aware, that there should not be regulation exercised over television, as over sound broadcasting. There is going to be some form of regulation, whether it be carried on by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or by some independent regulatory board or tribunal. Therefore that regulatory tribunal, whatever it may be-and under the present system it would be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself-would have ample power to see that there is not an undue commercial content in any television programs sent out from private stations, and also that there was not any undue American content. All of us want to see as high a content of Canadian broadcasting in Canadian television as may be in keeping with good programs. It will take time to develop Canadian television talent and Canadian television techniques. But valuable time is being lost and unfairness is being perpetrated by the government, not simply on people who are applying for licences but upon the people who want to receive television.
Meantime, because of the concentration of television in these two major urban centres in Canada, Montreal and Toronto, the benefits of television, in so far as it is developed, are going to be enjoyed largely by the residents of these two great urban centres.
The government has not yet told us very much about how television is to be financed. The chairman of the board of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation indicated in his evidence last Monday that a receiving licence fee of $15 is probably going to be required, to make up the very large gap between revenues and expenditures of the corporation in television. Already the house has authorized substantial loans to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the development of television. Speaking from memory, these loans already aggregate $4,500,000. I think it will be a matter of concern to all members that, when these substantial expenditures have been authorized out of public

moneys, the benefits of television in Canada should be as widely diffused as possible. It seems to me that that healthy diffusion of the benefits of television will be defeated by this policy of concentrating the development of television exclusively in the hands of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and denying to all others any opportunity of participating in that development.
These are only a few of the matters which have come before the committee. I wish it were possible for the opinion of the house to be tested on those two very important subjects which I have sought to discuss tonight. The first of these is:	What type of
regulatory machinery should be set up in Canada? Should it be an independent body standing apart from both the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its competitors among the private stations; or should it be the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation itself which, to a large extent, is a competitor of many of these private stations?
The other question is this:	Should the
development of television be hampered in the way the government is hampering it today? Why should not Canadians be permitted by the government to enjoy the benefits of television? There should be an opportunity of testing the opinion of the house with regard to that government policy. Unfortunately this bill does not offer adequate opportunity in that regard. But some day, and I hope before long, I am sure an effective opportunity will be given to the Canadian parliament to express its verdict upon that barren, negative government policy.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Chairman, I should like to join the hon. member for Eglinton in saying how enjoyable the meetings of the radio committee have been, not only this year but in former years, and how we have appreciated the information and advice we received in that committee from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and, indeed, through the representations from time to time of the Canadian association of broadcasters, representing many of the private stations.
As one who has served on that committee almost continuously-with the exception of two-I have been interested to see how, bit by bit, the original intention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has been set aside, and to a large extent the authority of government bodies, both the Department of Transport and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, reduced.
Those of us who have been familiar for a number of years with broadcasting in this country will well recollect the establishment of the Aird commission, and we will recall
Canadian Broadcasting Act what the Aird commission recommended, because of the chaotic and unsatisfactory condition of broadcasting in Canada. The Aird commission recommended that we should have a completely government owned and controlled broadcasting system, that the private stations that existed at the time of the passing of the act which established the original Canadian Broadcasting Commission should be expropriated, and that we should have only a dominion-wide government owned publicly controlled broadcasting system in this country. That was the idea Right Hon. R. B. Bennett had when he introduced the first act governing broadcasting in Canada. I am not going to quote Mr. Bennett at this time; but When I look back over the years and recollect the warnings he gave the house, both when that act was passed and when the new act was passed in 1936, I believe it was, I realize how far-sighted he was in his prognostications of what might happen in the future.
No government we have had in Canada, whether Conservative or Liberal, since the first broadcasting legislation was introduced in 1932, has sought to change the original conception. That original conception was that, because of the peculiar nature of the country, because of its great distances, because of the scattered population, because we have two great peoples with different cultural origins, the only manner in which we could have a satisfactory system of broadcasting was to have one owned and controlled by the people through their government, and operated by a corporation set up by and operating under a statute of parliament And in 1936, when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was piloting through the house a new act, he said this:
Radio broadcasting in Canada has been studied by one royal commission and three parliamentary committees,-
That was before 1936.
-and these four reports agree on the broad principles that must govern us. That is to say, the aim of broadcasting should be complete coverage by government facilities and the present situation demands complete control over all forms of broadcasting whether public or private. These conditions are being maintained in the present bill.
Apparently the private broadcasters accepted that situation, until they made their recent representations. In those recent representations they have gone far beyond anything they ever asked before. What they actually asked for this time was the repeal of the acts as we understand and know them,
1850	HOUSE OF
Canadian Broadcasting Act the setting aside of the very basis of broadcasting in this country as we have known it hitherto. In their brief they said this:
We believe that regulations applied to broadcasting should be for only the required technical purposes so that order may be maintained on the airwaves, and that broadcasting should not be subjected to controls which do not apply to any other form of mass communication.
In other words all that this house could do, and I presume the Department of Transport under the act, would be to see to it that the airwaves were properly apportioned, that interference was looked after and all that kind of thing, and that the private stations should be in the same position as are the newspapers of Canada. What they forget of course is that they are in a different position to the newspapers of Canada because they are occupying publicly owned airwaves which are granted to them for the time being and over which during that time they exercise some control. In other words, a monopoly of an air wavelength is granted to a private organization by the government, or by the people of Canada if you like that better, as a privilege and not as a right.
When we hear about business competition in connection with broadcasting between the private organizations themselves or between the private organizations and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation it is not competition in the ordinary sense of the word because to begin with a private broadcasting station, under acts passed first by the Conservatives and then by the present government and affirmed all through the years in the reports of various parliamentary committees, is placed in a position where it is under the control of a publicly organized authority. As I say, their representations this year went far beyond anything they have asked for heretofore. I should like to refer to page 151 of the record of the proceedings of the 1947 committee. Mr. Sedgwick was appearing on behalf of the private broadcasters and on June 3, 1947, he said this:
. . . such freedom of speech should be properly safeguarded by having the regulation of radio broadcasting in the hands of a licensing and regulatory body which should be as independent as possible of the government of the day and which should be appointed directly by and responsible directly to parliament itself.
In other words in 1947, while they were asking for a different kind of regulatory body, they wanted a body to regulate all matters having to do with radio broadcasting. This year they have asked for something different. In support of the request for a new regulatory body they quote Dr. Surveyer. I wondered why they quoted Dr. Surveyer. If you will read his minority report you will find


that he does recommend a regulatory body different from the C.B.C., and why? Because he thinks the C.B.C. is too busy to undertake the proper regulation of broadcasting in Canada. He quotes at some length to prove that radio broadcasting has not carried out the function it should have carried out in raising the tastes of the Canadian people. In fact he quotes various authorities to suggest that radio broadcasting has not hastened the maturity of many of the people of Canada. He quotes a number of experts and authorities to support these contentions, and he has this to say, as found at page 398 of the report of the Massey commission:
The excerpts and quotations given above reveal what heavy responsibilities will be placed on the shoulders of the members of the independent regulating body charged with the task of not only arbitrating on the disagreements between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the private broadcasters, but also with the more difficult mission of planning an adequate and well balanced schedule of radio and television programs for Canada. It is obvious that the group of men who will have this double responsibility should not be charged with this other double duty of operating the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation networks and of producing the programs suggested by the new control board.
In his recommendation for a new regulatory body I think Dr. Surveyer goes far beyond anything we in this parliament would approve or accept. He wants a regulatory body which would be responsible for raising the whole tone of Canadian broadcasting and which would, as he says, bring about a greater maturity of mind, thinking, culture and taste among the people of Canada. In other words, for the private broadcasters to call in Dr. Surveyer to support a private regulatory body-a minority report, in other words-is, I think, to destroy the very argument that some of my bon. friends are using in that connection.
I do not want to speak at any great length. The hon. member for Eglinton mentioned the criticisms that have been made of some of the programs that have been heard on the air. I am convinced that when second reading of the bill was before the house and we were discussing this matter, many hon. members who spoke had either not heard the broadcasts that were then under criticism or had not read the scripts. As it happened I had heard most of the broadcasts complained of, and I had the temerity to say in the house that I thought they were the kind of broadcast that a good many people in Canada should be entitled to hear. I was not only criticized in the house for having said that but subsequently I received a number of letters to the same effect. I think hon. members who were on the radio committee, and who have had an opportunity to read the scripts that were

the basis of the broadcasts, will agree that in the main they were in very fine language, that there was nothing of a blasphemous nature and that they were the kind of thing that is heard daily in the classrooms of our colleges.
The only suggestion I would make is one that as a matter of fact was made also by the hon. member for Eglinton. I would suggest that when topics of that type are discussed on the air by scientists or others and they come to conclusions which may not be the opinion of a majority or even a large minority of the people of Canada, at the end of that same series of broadcasts an opportunity should be given to put the other side of the case. I may say that I listen with a great deal of interest to many different types of broadcasts. I enjoy the religious programs on Sunday afternoon. Some of them are distinctly doctrinal. They speak of the doctrines of the various churches and are of great interest. I have listened to a series of broadcasts by eminent clergymen of the Roman Catholic church, my own church which is the Anglican church, the Baptist church and the Presbyterian church, on a recent Sunday evening series dealing with the development of Christian thought, and have enjoyed them very much.
I think all sides of these questions should be presented to the people of Canada in order that we may arrive at some maturity in our thought. As I say, the only proviso I would make is that where something of a very controversial nature is being discussed an opportunity should be given for someone to reply. In connection with the four-I think that is the number-broadcasts by Dr. Hoyle of Cambridge university on the nature of the universe, which have been under criticism, at the end of that series of broadcasts a Roman Catholic priest I believe from St. Michael's college in Toronto replied to the position taken by Dr. Hoyle from the religious and Christian point of view.
I think it is perfectly satisfactory when that is done. I am happy to know that the church to which I belong, the Anglican church in Canada, held a meeting of its bishops and ohancellors a short time ago who came to the unanimous conclusion that broadcasts of the type that have been under criticism should be permitted, indeed encouraged, provided that an opportunity for criticism is given. That was also the position taken by the United Church of Canada. I was interested to see that the Prairie Messenger, a paper which circulates widely in Saskatchewan and which is published by the Benedictine Fathers in that province, took a similar position in an editorial. That was the position taken by
Canadian Broadcasting Act that great and influential Roman Catholic order. The same position was taken by the Canadian council of churches.
If we are to have freedom of speech on the air opportunity must be given for the airing of views with which some of us may disagree from time to time, always provided that an opportunity is given for the making of an adequate reply. In these days when freedom of speech is so essential we must beware lest we fall into the trap of limiting the freedom of speech we now have.
I do not know the political views of some of the commentators who have been criticized, and I was surprised to hear tonight that Matthew Halton was left of centre. I have listened to him on many occasions and have always thought he was pretty objective in his remarks. As I pass across the country I have been told by Liberals, Conservatives, C.C.F.'ers, Social Crediters and people of every shade of opinion that the one commentator they have enjoyed over the years is Matthew Halton. He has been acclaimed by various broadcasting authorities, both in North America and overseas, as being one of the ablest broadcasters anywhere in the world. I do not know most of the others well enough to say much about them, although I have listened to them with a great deal of interest.
I am glad provision is to be made for the financing of the corporation. I believe that if the house approves the suggestion made as to financing more adequate programs will be available. I hope that will be so. I hope also that a greater limit will be placed on the amount of advertising over the air. I did not bring with me this evening the copy of Time of December 3 which I saw a few days ago, and which outlined the amounts spent on advertising by some of the big corporations in the United States. I remember that one was spending $43 million a year on advertising. One of the toothpaste and soap organizations was spending around $16 million a year.
People think they get their radio programs free over the private stations, but they do not. They pay for them in the soap, in the toothpaste, in the sausages, in the soup, in almost everything they buy. They pay through the nose for those things advertised on the various stations, including the private stations and those of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We would not buy some of these products at all if they were not constantly named and drummed into our ears hour after hour over the radio and constantly kept before our eyes in the various newspapers and other publications that we see. No wonder we pay 83 cents for a tube

Canadian Broadcasting Act of toothpaste that I am told costs 9 or 10 or 12 cents to make and package. We pay dearly for radio programs through advertising.
May I say a word about television. Like my hon. friend I spent a most interesting day at Montreal looking over the headquarters of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. I think all Canadians can be proud of those headquarters at Montreal. I hope that with the additional funds we are proposing to appropriate through this bill the facilities in other places like Toronto, Winnipeg and elsewhere will be improved.
I repeat that we can be proud of what we saw in Montreal. We can be proud of the people who are doing the job in Montreal and across the country. There is a fine staff of young men and women who have entered this new field which has been developed over the last twenty years, and who are doing a competent and splendid job in radio broadcasting.
I think what interested us most on this visit was the television. We had the opportunity to see how far the corporation had gone in its preparations to give television to this country. I marvelled first at the intricacy of the equipment required both for radio and television. We sometimes speak of literacy as though it were merely the ability to write and perhaps develop our mental faculties in a literary way, but I sometimes feel most illiterate in another sense when I visit places of this description and see the intricate machinery and equipment with which many of these younger people have to work. It is all dutch to me, if I may put it that way. What these people are doing in Montreal is a great credit to them and to Canada.
Who is going to give us television? The hon. member for Eglinton would like to see the private stations take over television and give us presumably the kind of television they are getting in the United States. If that were done it would be a punishment upon all the people of Canada for the negligence of this House of Commons at the present time. I do not want to see our people undergo the kind of punishment they are getting in the United States from the private telecasting organizations. I have noticed statements that have appeared in certain responsible newspapers, not only those which support the government but those which ordinarily support the friends of the hon. member for Eglinton. The Ottawa Journal has the reputation of being a Conservative paper. An editorial in tonight's issue deals with a brief presented a few days ago by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce in which they alleged to represent 100,000

businessmen in this country. They urged that an opportunity be given to private organizations to go into television. However, the Journal questions that statement; indeed, it makes the suggestion that if a vote were taken of those 100,000 persons it might be found that the majority would disapprove of the chamber's brief presented to the government in relation to television. I am convinced that our people would rather wait a little while than have the kind of television inflicted upon them that we find to a large extent in the United States. I believe the Massey commission was very forthright, and indeed very wise, in the recommendation it made. If one will read the sections in the Massey report at pages 301, 302 and 303, where the reasons for the recommendations are given, one finds the recommendations in these terms:
That no private television broadcasting stations be licensed until the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has available national television programs and that all private stations be required to serve as outlets for national programs.
They also submitted:
That direction and control of television broadcasting in Canada continue to be vested in the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
That the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation proceed with plans for the production of television programs in French and English and for national coverage by kinescope recordings or by any other practicable means.
The commission is most anxious that television shall be safeguarded. It is true that today there are a number of television sets in Canada. You find them in the Niagara peninsula, in Toronto, and other places near the United States border. I am quite sure that those who have these sets would agree with me that many of the programs emanating from the United States are third or fourth rate. In the evening a great many of the programs consist of wrestling or boxing matches which are easily televised, and indeed are televised very well. But in Canada we would like to see something a little more -I hate to use the word-cultural than that sort of thing. I should like to say that I believe we are wise to wait a while, and I do not agree with the hon. member for Eglinton in saying that this is a policy of government. I like to think of the policy with regard to radio and television as a policy of this parliament. Effective public control was the policy of Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, and it was the policy of the succeeding government under Right Hon. Mr. King. No fundamental change was made. It is the policy that has been consistently pursued, no matter what government has been in power. Consequently I should like to see the hon.

members of the house take pride in this as their broadcasting system, their television system; the broadcasting system of this parliament of Canada, and not of one section of this house or of any political party.
I hope that one day we may have the country covered by television. When one sees the equipment we saw in Montreal the other day, and realizes that to put television over will cost millions, not hundreds of thousands of dollars, one can realize the difficulties. The very mobile unit which we saw on the floor costs about $100,000. When you think of all the other equipment, the cost of operation and all the rest of it, it will run into the millions of dollars. As a matter of fact we were told that it takes 40 hours of preparation and rehearsal to produce a half hour program. I believe it takes seven times as many people as are engaged in the production of a radio program. When you look at those figures you begin to realize the costliness of this operation.
If television did get into private hands the organizations that could put on television programs would have to be very wealthy indeed. If you relied on advertising only, then the wealthiest corporations in Canada would be the only ones who could afford to advertise. Resale price maintenance would be nothing to the monopoly you would create if radio advertising did take care of television, because only the most powerful nation-wide organizations who were prepared to spend millions in advertising could take advantage of those facilities. Consequently I am one of those who believe that the Massey commission was right in its recommendations that we should proceed slowly, and that we should make this a Canadian effort. We should try to provide both our English and French speaking people with television as quickly as possible, but we should take every precaution to see that television is used for entertainment, for education, but most of all to promote the consciousness of Canada, our Canadian way of life, and our Canadian culture, and not to sell this country down the river to our friends to the south.


Mr. Hansell:: Canadian Broadcasting Act
I have some criticism to offer in respect of these matters. One of the representations that has come through the mail to us makes special reference to the C.B.C. white paper with which I think we are all familiar. These representations deplore what they surmise may be some interference with this white paper. They want the principles involved in that white paper to continue and to be established. I am not going to criticize the white paper particularly, but I am going to analyse it a little and expound something which I trust will be a bit thought-provoking. This particular representation goes on to say:
According to the C.B.C. white paper on political and controversial broadcasting which has been approved by parliament in the past, the basic principles of this national policy are:
I am going to read them, and I am going to comment on them as I go along.
1.	The air belongs to the people-
May I interject here that I have some reservation with respect to that assertion. I do not know that it does belong to the people. At least I will say that phrase "it belongs to the people" is a socialist phrase. But let me read the whole section:
The air belongs to the people, who are entitled to hear the principal points of view on all questions of importance.
The question I want to ask here is this. Who is to determine what the principal points of view are, and who is to determine what the questions of importance are? Another thing I am going to suggest is this. If the air belongs to the people, and if they are entitled to hear the principal points of view on all questions of importance, I am going to ask this question: Are they entitled to hear it at the taxpayers' expense?
2.	The air must not fall under the control of any individuals or groups influential by reason of their wealth or special position.
I want to emphasize the last words "or special position" because the air does fall under the control of individuals with special position. It falls under the control of the talks department which is composed of people who are in a special position, for they are the ones who formulate the programs and decide on the people who must take part in opinion broadcasts.
3.	The right to answer is inherent in the democratic doctrine of free speech.
I believe that; but we have not the right to answer over the national networks in this *country. Someone has a right only if that someone is chosen by those in a special position and he is asked: Would you mind giving this series a little balance? Will you, along with others, take part in this series of talks?
[Mr. Hansell.l

I am saying that the right to answer'which is inherent in the democratic doctrine of free speech is not a principle that is being followed in the 'opinion broadcasts on our national networks.
I now come to another thing:
4.	Freedom of speech and the full interchange of opinion are among the principal safeguards of free institutions.
Once again I am going to say that there is no full interchange of opinion. It is only as full as the talks department care to make it. I know that it is not just the easiest thing in the world to arrange, and I am not harshly criticizing those four principles, because I recognize the fact that you have to put in there something to guide those who are in the special position of being able to say who is to take part in opinion broadcasts.
I now want to say just a word or two with respect to the particular series of broadcasts that have come in for some considerable criticism, and I am happy that this is so. I believe the officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should also be glad, because that is the only way they are able to know what the people are thinking about. I want to say one thing. In my opinion- and it may differ from that of a good many- the broadcasts that were given in that particular series were anti-Christian. I am not wanting to cast any reflection upon the individuals who gave them. They may be good men and honest men. They may be speaking their own personal convictions. But in my opinion they ran contrary to what I would regard as being in the best interests of our Christian way of life. Surely we can put down as one great solid factor that the foundation upon which any nation can be built and made great is the foundation of Christian principles. Surely we can put that down as one solid, indisputable fact. Surely we want to build a great nation of God-fearing people. Surely we want to build a great nation whose people will recognize our dependence upon almighty God, the Creator and the Redeemer of men and of nations. Surely we want to do that. Very well, then. "If the foundations be destroyed, what will the righteous do?" That last phrase is a quotation from holy writ. Therefore I say that even though we may desire to have a properly balanced program of opinion broadcasts, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation should be very careful lest that institution be used to ultimately destroy the foundations upon which any great nation is built, the foundations which will make any nation great.
I wonder whether I might just refer to one or two of these broadcasts in question.

I am going to take the broadcast given by Dr. Brock Chisholm. I know what is going to be said. It is said all the time, as soon as you mention somebody's name. "Oh, well, now, you are going to slur some character; you are going to do this, you are going to do that. Let us not bring personalities into this thing." That is the cry that goes up. Let me say to you, Mr. Chairman, that any man who enters public life opens himself to public criticism. Some of us know that. I am going to say right now that no election campaign has ever been fought where public men, in some phase or another, have not been attacked. That is the natural process, because men in public life are responsible to the public and express themselves, or have opinions that are in the interests of, or in the disinterest of, the public; we can expect criticism.
I have never met Dr. Chisholm. I suppose he is a charming gentleman, a good man, a good citizen. I am not disparaging the person at all, but I am going to read one or two things he said in his broadcast. I cannot take time to quote too much. The broadcast, to start with, has as its theme "Man's last enemy, himself." He starts off in the introductory remarks with a very familiar quotation, "Man, know thyself." His broadcast is designed to bring to his listeners the important theme that man must know himself. Very well. Who is to teach man himself? Who is to teach man what he is? Who is to teach man so that man can know himself? We do not read very far in the broadcast until we come to the point which he illustrates, namely that if anything goes wrong with the washing machine, or the refrigerator does not work properly, you call in an expert to do whatever needs to be done. He goes on to say that the same principle is involved in this theme. Therefore if you want to know yourself you have to bring in the experts. He never tells us who the experts are; oh, no. I should like to know who they are. Perhaps he regards himself as one, and I have no quarrel with him if he does, but I am going to say this. I will tell you who I think the experts are. He deals with the matter of child psychology. The greatest experts in the world are the Christian mothers and fathers who bring up their children in the admonition of almighty God. They are the experts. Give me the kind of parents who will bring up their children in Christian teaching, with the devotion and affeotion those parents give to children; give me those, and I will put them alongside the Chisholms, the Freuds and the Camerons, or anyone of their kind, and I will guarantee that the nation will be stronger. The nations
Canadian Broadcasting Act of the world will be stronger if we pay a little more attention to these kinds of experts.
What do the experts say, after all? I will tell you. They say: "Come along here. You are a man. I am going to teach you to know yourself. I will take your brain and put it on the table, and I will begin to dissect it. I will take your personality, and I will tell you all about your personality. I will dissect that, too. If you want to give me your gizzard) I will put that on the table, and I will begin to dissect that, too. And after I have them all dissected I will put them back again and I will make a new man out of you, so that after I get through you will be able to understand yourself." That is just about the way they work. Well, by the time I got through reading this broadcast I made a little note on the bottom, and that little note in my handwriting is this: "I don't know myself any better than I did before I read the broadcast."
Let me go on a little further, Mr. Chairman. I notice that it is nearly ten o'clock, but if I may just have a few more minutes I will be through.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ernest George Hansell: There is another part in this broadcast that I do not like, and I should like to mention it. Dr. Chisholm refers to certain things, and he gives an illustration. He is talking about the rate of increase in world population, and he says it has jumped to about 68,000 a day. He then asks this question:
Are you among the hundreds of millions of people who are avoiding this frightening fact? Are you among those whose opinion, based on some authoritarian prejudice, prevents delegates to the United Nations bodies, even the population commission, from tackling this problem?
That leaves it in the air. Who is this prejudiced authoritarian who seeks to channel and control men's opinions? He does not say. Perhaps I know to whom he refers, but I do say that to put that in a broadcast and pour it into the ears of several million people is not fair. There are some people in the world who, because of their Christian concepts, have a great deal of respect for those who are in religious authority, and I believe that such phraseology is just taking advantage of them.
I might go on. He spends a good deal of time giving illustrations about the way parents should teach their children in respect of their bowel movements. I am not going to have anything to say about that, but once again I am saying that I do not think you can teach a mother and father very much about their children in that respect. He

Canadian Broadcasting Act goes on to show how you can approach it from an angle which will have a particular reaction upon the child after he grows up. You can take that for what it is worth. I do not think it is worth very much. Then he goes on in his broadcast to talk about a child's sexual equipment. Well, some may smile. Some may say, "Why bring that up in parliament?" All I am going to say is: Why pour it into the ears of a few million people?


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: Yet he gets paid for doing it. I will not say any more on that. I know we are anxious to get through.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Ernest George Hansell: I will not talk long.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Shall the section carry?


Ernest George Hansell: No. I will not keep the house longer in this respect. If hon. members do not wish to go on tonight, I will adjourn the debate. But perhaps we might go on for five minutes more.


An hon. Member:: Finish.


Mr. Casselman:: You are asking for it. Let him give it to you.


Ernest George Hansell: What I was going to say is this-


Donald Methuen Fleming: There are others who will speak on this section.


Ernest George Hansell: We believe in free speech. We like free speech. But let us not run away with the notion that the only place we can have free speech is over the radio networks of Canada. We are told the air belongs to the people. Well, it belongs only as far as one's voice will carry, and always has. We have no objection to a man gathering a few people around him, if he has an idea he would like to propound. There is nothing to prevent that idea from taking hold. There is nothing to prevent those people saying, "It is good; we think you should expound it further. We will call in a few more of our friends."
There is nothing to prevent a man from gathering a few supporters around him. That is not very difficult. And if his idea is worth anything it is not difficult for him to get on the air, even though in a small way. His friends will support him. He can start out on a small station at very small expense, and give voice to his idea.
That is free speech. And if it catches on, then some other stations will want it. Eventually the idea will become well known, but he does not have to express his ideas at the

expense of the taxpayers. Almost anyone can get on the air in a small way if he has something worthwhile to say.


An hon. Member:: Did you hear Mr. Fair last night?.


Ernest George Hansell: We must not think the only place free speech can be expressed is over a national network. I do not know whether those in this series of broadcasts who have been criticized take that view or not. If the psychiatrists have an idea, let them gather their friends around them. Let them pay for some time on a private station. Then if the idea catches on, let it spread. Someone will want it, in that event. But they should not do it at the taxpayers' expense.
But some of these people look at it differently and will say, "Oh, no; this is different. Here is a multimillion dollar corporation with huge networks capable of reaching millions of people. Why not take advantage of it?" I do not think I am far off the beam when I say the attitude is, "Well, if you pull the right wire, know the right people, and go about it in the right way, eventually you may get on the national networks, at the expense of the taxpayers, and be paid for doing it." That is the way it works.
I do not think I need say anything further. I could go on criticizing all these speeches, but I will reserve what I have to say until we reach other sections of the bill. There are one or two other matters about which I shall have something to say. I have set out my objections, and perhaps what I have said will be accepted as a contribution to the discussion.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue the consideration of Bill No. 17, to amend the Canadian Broadcasting Act, 1936; and then a list of small bills: Bill No. 41, to amend the Dominion Elections Act; Bill No. 42, to amend the National Gallery Act; Bill No. 43, to amend the Civil Service Act; Bill No. 8, to amend the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners Act; Bill No. 18, to provide for the establishment of an agricultural products board; the resolution in the name of the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning the provision for short-term credit to grain producers in the prairie provinces and, if we have time, Bill No. 23, to amend the Government Annuities Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes aften ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on November 2, 1951.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 13, 1951